On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:18:16 +0000, Richard Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 November 2011 11:41, Sebastian Heinlein <[email protected]> wrote: >> AptDaemon will just be another implementation of the PackageKit API - >> with packagekitd as the reference implementation. We won't support every >> last piece of PackageKit but those which are relevant for an APT based >> package managing. > > So, can you clarify which bits of the API you are supporting, and also > the extra API you're intending to add. If the complete API isn't > implemented, I think it's an exaggeration at best to call it "another > implementation".
There won't be any additional API compared to the PackageKit one. It is all about compliance. The AptDaemon D-Bus interface is still available and will be used by e.g. software-center or update-manager. All methods and properties of the org.freedesktop.PackageKit and org.freedesktop.PackageKit.transaction interface are available and behave in a sane way. The supported and not supported roles and filters are clearly communicated to the client - thanks to the PackageKit infrastructure which has to support backends with different capabilities and degrees of integration. One exception is for example the CanAuthorize method which always returns "interactive" currently or the ignored store-in-cache property of DownloadPackages (the packages are always stored in the APT cache). The focus is on the DBus interface only. AptDaemon won't support sharing the sqlite transaction log or configuration files with PackageKit. Furthermore the PolicyKit priviliges of AptDaemon are used. There are also no plans for alternative backends. > I also think it's a shame the new API couldn't be added to PackageKit > itself. Even stuff like AddLicenseKey would make sense as it could be > re-used by RHEL, SLED and that kind of thing. The most important thing for me was to get the PackageKit API into Ubuntu and no longer block any client applications and so the adoption of the API. Aptdaemon won't go away in the next one or two years. It was also a shame that we could not aggree on the policy some years ago and now have got a PackageKit allowing debconf and config file handling - those have been the main reasons for the development of AptDaemon if I remember right. Cheers, Sebastian -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
