Overview of Jockey replacement; options for Kubuntu?

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Martin,

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:23:23AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Jonathan Thomas [2012-05-25  9:09 -0400]:
> > I think that we'd rather not use PackageKit (for Kubuntu at least).

> Please note that it just provides a PackageKit API. We don't use the
> actual PackageKit in Ubuntu as well, but the python-aptdaemon.pkcompat
> wrapper. Kubuntu does the same.

> This provides an upstream friendly API, so that our GUIs for driver
> detection do not have to stay distro specific for all times. However,
> you don't have to use it, of course.

I have vague recollections that the reason we never adopted packagekit
itself was because it was designed for an RPM-centric world, an in
particular did not allow packages to interact with users (i.e., debconf and
conffile prompts), and packagekit upstream was not interested in
accomodating dpkg requirements.  Does using the PackageKit API introduce the
same limitations on package interaction?

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20120530/3fb64bf1/attachment.pgp>