Re: [PATCH] packagekit: Updated to 0.8.13

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-11-13 11:58:
> On Thursday 28 November 2013 11:49:18 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-11-13 11:32:
>>> Hi Koen / Felipe,
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 28 November 2013 10:22:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Felipe F. Tonello schreef op 28-11-13 01:56:
>>>>> From: "Felipe F. Tonello" <eu@felipetonello.com> This recipe
>>>>> supports the backend for packagekit dynamically based on the
>>>>> IMAGE_PKGTYPE.
>>>> 
>>>> NAK! IMAGE_FEATURES should *never* change non-image recipe params. 
>>>> This breaks using feeds horribly.
>>> 
>>> IMAGE_PKGTYPE is influenced by PACKAGE_CLASSES; so this is not about 
>>> IMAGE_FEATURES, and correct me if I'm wrong but maintaining package
>>> feeds
>>> 
>>> would generally preclude switching to an alternative package
>>> manager,
>>> 
>>> right?
>> 
>> No, it's perfectly possible to build both opkg and rpm, which is what
>> I'm currently doing. When doing that the DISTRO.conf does need to make
>> a decision on what to support for things like packagekit.
>> 
>>> Some options:
>>> 
>>> 1) Apply the patch as-is. Changing the order/value of
>>> PACKAGE_CLASSES will mean this and anything that depends upon it will
>>> rebuild.
>>> 
>>> 2) Install the appropriate backend via some code in the image
>>> recipe. Obviously this means you have to do this for every image
>>> recipe though.
>>> 
>>> 3) Use non-dynamic PACKAGECONFIG. Of course this means you'll have
>>> to remember to change this manually if you change PACKAGE_CLASSES or
>>> it'll just be broken at runtime.
>>> 
>>> Honestly, option 1 sounds like the best course to me here. This is
>>> rather a special case compared to other recipes.
>> 
>> 1) will let you end up with packagekit_1.0.ipk that only supports RPM
> 
> Correct, it would. I agree that's not ideal. Neither is having it broken
> by default for some people though (unless you just set all backends to on
> by default, that is.)
> 
>> 2) Is what we would really want, but I don't think packagekit supports
>> that :(
> 
> This patch looks like it is splitting out the backends into separate 
> packages...

If that's the case, 2) is the route to go.

> 
>> So that leaves 3, which makes it a clear DISTRO decision, like it
>> should be.
> 
> It's worth pointing out that the patch sets PACKAGECONFIG with ??= so it
>  doesn't stop you from doing this.
> 
> Cheers, Paul
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFSlyLtMkyGM64RGpERAmfuAJ9DTZhTFkAQ7AwRYQbSVzHGyRCtigCeLU92
psvh/e2iCRGJLTUfAWzoF5I=
=vIts
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----