Re: FUD from PackageKit, Was: External dependencies, DeviceKit-power and GNOME Power Manager


Please, both, cool down. We don't need a flame war, and certainly not on

Both seems to have their good POV; both seem to have a deteriorated
vision of the other, probably due to past discussions.

For example, saying that PackageKit can "serve only second-grade
distributions", isn't nice to the developers. Josselin, probably you
didn't realize that because you feel deeply frustrated and ignored, but
to an external viewer you're looking quite aggressive.

I think Richard felt attacked, jumped in the trench, and started
shooting back. This won't bring anyone anywhere: we need the
collaboration of a great distro like Debian as much as we need

I see PackageKit as a very welcome idea and a needed layer in order to
abstract what's most inhomogeneous across distros: package management. 

I'm quite excited by it. Maybe who wrote the apt backend could jump in
the discussion and say what the difficulties of making it run seamlessly

An idea, by the way: as of now, Ubuntu during an update pops-up
sparingly a window asking what to do with a modified configuration file:
if keeping the original version of the maintainer, the modified one, or
what else.

Can't we have an option at the beginning of the upgrade process like
    When a system-wide configuration file has to be replaced:

      (o)  Always choose the new version (recommended)
      ( )  Always leave the local version in place
      ( )  Ask from time to time
...or maybe a preference option?

Most users seeing that smb.conf or login.defs has to be adjusted really
don't know what to do (I've seen quite a lot of them panicking at a
distro upgrade): they never touched these files and don't know what they

If this is Ubuntu specific only, just tell and I'll open a bug in


Il giorno mar, 25/11/2008 alle 19.58 +0100, Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
> Le mardi 25 novembre 2008 à 18:26 +0000, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> > Ubuntu are quite prepared to work _with_ the PackageKit developers
> > rather than _tell_ us what legacy features we have to support.
> I don’t recall having asked anyone to implement anything for us. However
> I do recall being explained that, if implemented, debconf support would
> not make it into your code.
> These kinds of little sentences are precisely the hostility I was
> talking about. You grew hate for the very idea of correctly supporting
> Debian based on false ideas of what our requirements are, and ignored
> any further attempts of explanations.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Questa =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]