Not proposing gnome-packagekit for 2.28

[Richard Hughes-6]

Quite a few people have asked me the same question...

I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle. At this stage
translated strings are still changing quite a bit, and lot of the UIs
I'm unhappy with as they need quite a bit of redesign/polish. Also,
quite a few distros have yet to write backends for PackageKit. Most of
the few remaining distros are mostly in the process of writing, or
discussing how to write, a backend.

Just for reference, gnome-packagekit has compile time deps of:

packagekit-glib >= 0.4.4
GLib >= 2.14.0
Gtk+ >= 2.16.0
D-Bus >= 1.1.2
GConf >= 0.22
D-Bus-glib >= 0.73
libnotify >= 0.4.3
libunique >= 1.0.0
gnome-menus >= 2.24.1
Gio >= 2.18.0
DeviceKit-power >= 007
libcanberra >= 0.10

Licence GPLv2+, uses gnome FTP for releases and gnome git for
development. Translated by the gnome translation teams.
I'm pretty sure none of those should pose any great problems.
Screenshots here: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-screenshots.html

Anyway, if anyone has any great argument about why I shouldn't propose
gnome-packagekit for 2-29 (or why I should do it for 2-27) please
shout now. I'm also not sure whether to propose it for the desktop set
or something else. Ideas welcome.

Thanks,

Richard.
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Richard Hughes<hughsient@...> wrote:
> Quite a few people have asked me the same question...
>
> I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
> intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle. At this stage
> translated strings are still changing quite a bit, and lot of the UIs
> I'm unhappy with as they need quite a bit of redesign/polish. Also,
> quite a few distros have yet to write backends for PackageKit. Most of
> the few remaining distros are mostly in the process of writing, or
> discussing how to write, a backend.

Well, now would be the time to propose it for 2.29, 2.28 is already in beta.

--
Patryk Zawadzki
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Richard Hughes-6]

2009/8/13 Patryk Zawadzki <patrys@...>:
> Well, now would be the time to propose it for 2.29, 2.28 is already in beta.

Ohh, okay. Is there anything additional to what I put in my mail
that's needed for a formal proposal?

Thanks,

Richard.
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:25 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Quite a few people have asked me the same question...
>
> I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
> intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle.

You know that proposing modules for 2.28 was 6 months ago and that
proposals for 2.29/2.30 acceptance are now? :)

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Bastien Nocera]

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:37 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2009/8/13 Patryk Zawadzki <patrys@...>:
> > Well, now would be the time to propose it for 2.29, 2.28 is already in beta.
>
> Ohh, okay. Is there anything additional to what I put in my mail
> that's needed for a formal proposal?

All is answered in mail you should have received:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.devel.announce/46


_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Andre Klapper]

Am Donnerstag, den 13.08.2009, 09:25 +0100 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
> intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle.

Then do it now. See
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/devel-announce-list/2009-August/msg00002.html

andre
--
 mailto:ak-47@... | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Richard Hughes-6]

2009/8/13 Bastien Nocera <hadess@...>:
> On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:25 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> Quite a few people have asked me the same question...
>>
>> I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
>> intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle.
>
> You know that proposing modules for 2.28 was 6 months ago and that
> proposals for 2.29/2.30 acceptance are now? :)

Now the nagging emails from random people make sense... :-)

One thing I didn't cover were the external dependency of PackageKit
(which some things already conditionally depend on, gnome-games,
nautilus, etc) which is already present in most of the big distros.
It's well documented, and an unstable version is released every month,
a stable version every 2-3 months. There's loads of verbage on
packagekit.org, or developer documentation here:
http://www.packagekit.org/gtk-doc/

The other is the goal of GNOME 3.0, which I think is pretty obvious.
We need an abstraction over the various different tools to allow
applications to install fonts, media players codecs and nautilus to
install applications for unknown mime types in a high level way. This
stuff just needs to work, without scaring the user about stuff they do
not understand. We need a coherent approach to updating and installing
software, rather than the hodgepotch of distro-specific tools we've
been using for years.

I'm aiming gnome-packagekit (and PackageKit generally) at these real
users: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-profiles.html -- it's not really
designed to be a power-user tool, as the logic would be that power
users would be using the native tool on the command line.

Richard.
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Andre Klapper]

Am Donnerstag, den 13.08.2009, 09:25 +0100 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> I do not want to propose gnome-packagekit for 2.28, but instead am
> intending to propose it during the 2.29 cycle.

The GNOME release-team will soon decide about module inclusions for
GNOME 2.30.

To the GNOME developers:
If you have not commented yet, if there is anything to add, if you have
questions to the maintainer: Please comment now.

To the maintainers who have proposed a module or a new dependency:
If there have been changes/improvements/fixes compared to when this
module was proposed: Mention them.
Also see http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing again.

andre
--
 mailto:ak-47@... | failed
 http://www.iomc.de/  | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Richard Hughes-6]

2009/10/26 Andre Klapper <ak-47@...>:
> To the maintainers who have proposed a module or a new dependency:
> If there have been changes/improvements/fixes compared to when this
> module was proposed: Mention them.

* Lots of UI polish has been done in the 2-28 series.
* 2-29 will depend on a more recent version of PackageKit which
removes a metric ton of ifdefs and compat code
* More distributions have added PackageKit by default[1] including a
notable mention of Moblin.

[1] http://www.packagekit.org/pk-users.html

If anyone has any concerns or questions in person, either grab me on
irc (hughsie) or on the PackageKit mailing list. Thanks.

Richard.
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-2]

Richard Hughes wrote:
> Anyway, if anyone has any great argument about why I shouldn't propose
> gnome-packagekit for 2-29 (or why I should do it for 2-27) please
> shout now. I'm also not sure whether to propose it for the desktop set
> or something else. Ideas welcome.

I was going to ask about the debconf support in PackageKit, but I just found [1]
which seems to suggest it's being fixed. Is that right? Will any Debian policy
compliant package work fine with PackageKit? I guess the solution is not KDE/Qt
specific. If so that's good news.

Cheers,
Emilio

[1] http://dantti.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/packagekit-and-the-road-to-debian/



_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Richard Hughes-6]

2009/11/4 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@...>:
> I was going to ask about the debconf support in PackageKit, but I just found [1]
> which seems to suggest it's being fixed. Is that right? Will any Debian policy
> compliant package work fine with PackageKit? I guess the solution is not KDE/Qt
> specific. If so that's good news.

Yes, it's being fixed. Debconf support is being implemented
out-of-band from a PackageKit transaction, with PK only giving
recommendations about when to work unattended and that sort of thing.
It's not close to being ready just yet, but there are are a couple of
people working on it right now. Packages that need a tty (and don't
use debconf) will never be supported, and currently fail with
PACKAGE_NOT_SUPPORTED. The implementation is fairly debconf specific
at this stage, although the PK bits are obviously backend neutral.

Richard.
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-2]

Richard Hughes wrote:

> 2009/11/4 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@...>:
>> I was going to ask about the debconf support in PackageKit, but I just found [1]
>> which seems to suggest it's being fixed. Is that right? Will any Debian policy
>> compliant package work fine with PackageKit? I guess the solution is not KDE/Qt
>> specific. If so that's good news.
>
> Yes, it's being fixed. Debconf support is being implemented
> out-of-band from a PackageKit transaction, with PK only giving
> recommendations about when to work unattended and that sort of thing.
> It's not close to being ready just yet, but there are are a couple of
> people working on it right now.

Great.

> Packages that need a tty (and don't
> use debconf) will never be supported, and currently fail with
> PACKAGE_NOT_SUPPORTED.

I guess these are those that read from stdin or the like... those packages are
really broken and thus this is OK, any such package would have RC bugs in Debian.

Now it just needs to get into Debian :)

Thanks,
Emilio



_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list