PDA

View Full Version : Article on PackageKit


Wayne
26th June 2008, 02:03 AM
My favourite quote is this:

Hughes started thinking about PackageKit in September 2006. "I was talking to my friends who said, 'I switched away from Fedora, because that Pirut thing was crap,'" he recalls, referring to the distribution's then-default graphical interface for package management. "And I looked at things honestly, and I though, 'Yeah, this is crap.' And I looked at other tools, and they were rubbish as well, so I thought, 'How can I make things function better?'"


This whole statement is pure cr*p. Yumex leaves PackageSpit standing in the water. It annoyed me so much I removed it from my system and just use yum from a Terminal and Yumex when I feel like using a GUI...

To be honest, I haven't read the whole thing, no time this morning!

http://www.linux.com/feature/137115

Wayne

Seve
26th June 2008, 02:07 AM
Hello:
If he wonderedHow can I make things function better? he had better get started on a new project :eek:

Seve

Wayne
26th June 2008, 02:09 AM
Yes, and something that does not involve computers or software :D

Wayne

bob
26th June 2008, 02:10 AM
If he's SMART, he's APT to find something a bit better.... :D

Seve
26th June 2008, 02:16 AM
Well done Bob :)

Any idea why being SMART and or APT wouldn't be good enough for Fedora ?

Seve

Demz
26th June 2008, 02:28 AM
i don't mind packageKit but it'll improve with time an more releases of it .. i dont think the Add/Remove PackageKit is Great yet.

Mandriva 2009 will also have packageKit

Last week's release of openSUSE 11.0 marks the end of another eventful release season. Luckily for us, the distro developers never sleep and for the next few months we can expect a steady stream of development builds for interested beta testers. The delayed first alpha of Ubuntu 8.10 should be out any moment now, but it looks like the first major distribution with a new development release will be Mandriva Linux, which published a detailed roadmap for its upcoming version last week (see the Upcoming Releases and Announcement section below). So what can we expect in Mandriva Linux 2009? As always, there are many interesting points, which Shafiq Issani summarises neatly in this blog post: "Here's what you should expect from Mandriva Linux 2009: a revamped installer; improved boot speed; improved DKMS (Dynamic Kernel Module Support) management; improved language selection; Linux kernel 2.6.26; GCC 4.3; GNOME 2.24; KDE 4.1; Firefox 3.0; OpenOffice.org 3.0; implementation of the PolicyKit and PackageKit technologies; improvements to the Mandriva Windows migration and parental control utilities; Live Upgrade (same as Ubuntu's update-manager tool); init scripts improvements; Splashy will replace the actual boot splash; lots of desktop improvements. There are also some rumors that X.Org 7.4 and GRUB 2.x will be included in Mandriva 2009."

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 02:33 AM
Another strike against the Fedora developers in my book. Yumex has served me well since FC4. Much better than Pirut and Packagekit is what is complete crap. Why cant they just use Yumex? Sometimes I really wonder what these people are thinking...

bob
26th June 2008, 02:35 AM
Of course, they're included, as Yum is also included in SuSE. You'd have to ask the devs why they're so stuck on yum and why apt is the defacto favorite of the great majority of the distros. Then too, why .rpm and .deb and so forth? On the one hand, it's holding linux back from getting drivers from software companies; on the other hand, it's keeping the virus and trojan and spyware peddlers at bay.

Sorry JN4, overposted on ya. Very true; they've got a winner with Yumex and it's been around forever. Go with that, just as Synaptic is installed automatically to handle Apt in other distros. It's the best, why not accept and use it?

Firewing1
26th June 2008, 03:27 AM
I agree at the moment Pirut is superior to PackageKit, but I bet PackageKit will overtake it in no time. I've been a few screenshots (http://www.packagekit.org/temp/) of the upcoming version, it looks great and improves on a lot of it's previous weaknesses.

What's nice about PackageKit that we don't get to see is that it's cross-distro - Run it on Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, CentOS, RHEL, whatever - It will get the information it needs and display it in the same way across all distros even though behind the scenes it's wrapping different package managers.
Firewing1

Demz
26th June 2008, 03:41 AM
thats much better the upcoming version of Packagekit,, the 0.1.x version was kinda crap, i also believe the 0.1.x version did not do any GPG Signing while downloading/installing a package, where as 0.2.x version now does

Dan
26th June 2008, 04:25 AM
I dunno, Stewart. After giving it (Package Kit) a fair try twice now ... I kinda wanna put it in the same box with Beagle ... and toss 'em both into a fast moving river.

Wayne
26th June 2008, 04:29 AM
Beagle is the first thing that gets removed here... well, more specifically, Mono is the first thing that gets removed here and Beagle goes along for the ride :D

PackageKit lasted slightly longer ;)

Wayne

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 04:30 AM
well, like everything else, we shall see how it evolves. But truthfully, I couldnt give two flips if it can wrap the package managers in multiple distros. When in debian I am happy with synaptic, when in Fedora I like yumex. Oh well, at least we have the option.

Wake me up when Linux has a universal repo for all distros. Then again, as someone above said, that will just be virus bait.

scottro
26th June 2008, 04:33 AM
Going back to Bob's comment, there was an interesting thread on the testing list last week. Someone asked why is yum so much slower than apt, and there were various answers, some arguing the point.

Actually, I've never figured out if apt is actually faster or just seems to be because more is going on in the term window. I like smart, but sometimes I think I'm not SMART enough to get it configured properly. (Sorry Bob, that was a poor imitation of your groaner.)

ArchLinux's pacman is very good, in my opinion. ArchLinux packages are basically just tarballs though, as opposed to rpms or debs. I tend to do all this from console with yum or apt or smart, so I don't know about yumex and packagekit. Not having used it, I can't say, though it seems that the general opinion about it is that it's not very good--though some, like some of the posters here, do believe it will improve.

I doubt that any package manager will ever always make everyone happy--too many different people with different needs. :)

Firewing1
26th June 2008, 06:20 AM
well, like everything else, we shall see how it evolves. But truthfully, I couldnt give two flips if it can wrap the package managers in multiple distros. When in debian I am happy with synaptic, when in Fedora I like yumex. Oh well, at least we have the option.

Wake me up when Linux has a universal repo for all distros. Then again, as someone above said, that will just be virus bait.
Interesting you mention that actually, I've been compiling a (fairly long) list of things that Linux needs to really make it big/mainstream, and that was one of them. Get rid of deb+rpm and make one better one. That would not only make package management easier, but speed the development of that one package manager and allow for a universal repository so all distros benefit at once.
</offtopic> ;)
Firewing1

JohnVV
26th June 2008, 08:45 AM
Firewing1 i do agree getting rid of .deb,.rpm is not a bad idea .The first thing i noticed was the division of " camps" in the nix world and not just in the distro/ flavor but also in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin . The network vs. home / single box file architecture . it is to the point that if i build something to install in /usr
I auto type ./configure --prefix=/usr . Just so it wont install in /usr/local
---
now as to yum and pirut . Pirut i can take or leave it , the last time i used it was after a reinstall of 8 and then only to bulk install the games
I've found typing yum search , yum 'some command ' so easy .I haven't used the others but i like yum .

Finalzone
26th June 2008, 11:11 AM
Time to read Yaakov M. Nemoy's Do we really need another packaging system? (http://loupgaroublond.blogspot.com/2008/06/do-we-really-need-another-packaging.html) post.

Finalzone
26th June 2008, 11:30 AM
Going back to Bob's comment, there was an interesting thread on the testing list last week. Someone asked why is yum so much slower than apt, and there were various answers, some arguing the point.

Actually, I've never figured out if apt is actually faster or just seems to be because more is going on in the term window. I like smart, but sometimes I think I'm not SMART enough to get it configured properly. (Sorry Bob, that was a poor imitation of your groaner.)


apt-deb only deals with packages, not libraries. What those people forgot is yum does more task than apt such as dep check by libraries, files, executables, perl modules, and some other modules, which makes the metadata large. Apt-deb still cannot 32/64bits libraires simultaneously.

Reference:
http://blog.kagesenshi.org/2008/06/is-this-why-apt-depsolvesearch-is-fast.html


Hope that helps.

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 01:49 PM
apt-deb only deals with packages, not libraries. What those people forgot is yum does more task than apt such as dep check by libraries, files, executables, perl modules, and some other modules, which makes the metadata large. Apt-deb still cannot 32/64bits libraires simultaneously.

Reference:
http://blog.kagesenshi.org/2008/06/is-this-why-apt-depsolvesearch-is-fast.html


Hope that helps.

No offence, but that article seems kind of vague! Even Kagesenshi admits more than once that he does not know what he is talking about!

But even if this is all technically true, whatever that means, so what? Apt-get, even in debian, works just fine! I have never had any kind of dependency problem in debian, in fact, when you consider the constant lag of Livna's kmod-nvidia (hopefully this is now fixed with akmod) to the kernel, I have had more problems resolving conflicts through yum than any other package manager. If Apt-Get does a complete job, and does it faster, then I simply do not understand how this poses a problem? Let me also state that I have never ran 64 bit debian, maybe this is the difference?

At any rate, going back to the Yaakov Nemoy article, I would argue that PackageKit is indeed an added layer on package management much that LVM is an added layer (and complication) to file management. Is this added layer beneficial to some people? Maybe. But for me it IS an added complication that I do not need. I suppose man once thought the same thing of the automatic transmission in automobiles. Ironically, I still prefer a manual.

Linux is destined to change. Things will become automatic and more complicated. I see vast differences even back to RH8 when i first started with this OS. We cannot fight this. I just hope it is a "sane" growth and not the convoluted clusterfreak that Windows has turned into. I still like to have one hand on the shift lever and one on the wheel.

Finalzone
26th June 2008, 06:53 PM
No offence, but that article seems kind of vague! Even Kagesenshi admits more than once that he does not know what he is talking about!
Baed on knowldege from Duncan Mac-Vicar.

But even if this is all technically true, whatever that means, so what? Apt-get, even in debian, works just fine! I have never had any kind of dependency problem in debian, in fact, when you consider the constant lag of Livna's kmod-nvidia (hopefully this is now fixed with akmod) to the kernel, I have had more problems resolving conflicts through yum than any other package manager. If Apt-Get does a complete job, and does it faster, then I simply do not understand how this poses a problem? Let me also state that I have never ran 64 bit debian, maybe this is the difference?
What it means is once you know how apt-deb works, it becomes pointless to argue about speed. Don't forget apt-rpm on Fedora is using yum metadata. Need to remind that in some case, yum has to enter two commands in apt (apt-get ugrade && apt-get dist which is an equivalent of yum update or yum upgrade), it is all about tradeoffs. I am using akmod instead of the old kmod because of the similarity with dkms.

At any rate, going back to the Yaakov Nemoy article, I would argue that PackageKit is indeed an added layer on package management much that LVM is an added layer (and complication) to file management. Is this added layer beneficial to some people? Maybe. But for me it IS an added complication that I do not need. I suppose man once thought the same thing of the automatic transmission in automobiles. Ironically, I still prefer a manual.
Aren't Pirut, synaptic or other frontend GUI added layer on package management? Despite the lack of features such as groupinstall (PackageKit is only a mere 6 months development), the ability to control of what user can install/remove outweighs its handicap in my point of view. Fortunately, in the Linux world, there are multiple ways to do similar functions depending of users. Basically, the whole argument is all about preference thus nothing do with say applications for example LWM where I feel the opposite way. Speaking about automatic transmission, have you heard about new technologies DSG (Direct Shift Gear) or Dual Clutch Transmission? Those gears are basically manual transmission without clutch pedal and no converter shifting faster than any traditional manual.

Linux is destined to change. Things will become automatic and more complicated. I see vast differences even back to RH8 when i first started with this OS. We cannot fight this. I just hope it is a "sane" growth and not the convoluted clusterfreak that Windows has turned into. I still like to have one hand on the shift lever and one on the wheel.
Then it is up to us to educate tos users.

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 07:07 PM
Aren't Pirut, synaptic or other frontend GUI added layer on package management? Despite the lack of features such as groupinstall (PackageKit is only a mere 6 months development), the ability to control of what user can install/remove outweighs its handicap in my point of view. Fortunately, in the Linux world, there are multiple ways to do similar functions depending of users. Basically, the whole argument is all about preference thus nothing do with say applications for example LWM where I feel the opposite way. Speaking about automatic transmission, have you heard about new technologies DSG (Direct Shift Gear) or Dual Clutch Transmission? Those gears are basically manual transmission without clutch pedal and no converter shifting faster than any traditional manual.

Yeah, I buy into most of what you are saying throughout your post. I am not saying we dont have room for PackageKit, or that it doesnt offer many advantages to some people. I will say the same about LVM. What I am saying is that these should not be forced on us. LVM should not be the default, and from what I have seen PackageKit shouldnt be either. I wouldnt mind so much if it wasnt in your face from the moment you boot up. Please, by all means, include it, give us the option to use it. But please dont force me to shut it off myself so i can use Yum when I want. OTOH, Fedora, in their infinite wisdom, is cutting out the things I DO need by default. Like development tools, a way to configure GDM, GParted...Can all this stuff be easily fixed? Sure. But I am really understanding less and less what Fedora is and where it is going. And that is ashame because, like so many in here, I dearly love this distro, but I am starting to become jaded.

Finalzone
26th June 2008, 07:26 PM
Yeah, I buy into most of what you are saying throughout your post. I am not saying we dont have room for PackageKit, or that it doesnt offer many advantages to some people. I will say the same about LVM. What I am saying is that these should not be forced on us. LVM should not be the default, and from what I have seen PackageKit shouldnt be either. I wouldnt mind so much if it wasnt in your face from the moment you boot up. Please, by all means, include it, give us the option to use it. But please dont force me to shut it off myself so i can use Yum when I want.
No need to be defensive. Your post seems to display the fear of change and new elements. You can choose to not install LVM , install Pirut instead Package thus practically customize your own Fedora.


OTOH, Fedora, in their infinite wisdom, is cutting out the things I DO need by default. Like development tools, a way to configure GDM, GParted...Can all this stuff be easily fixed? Sure. But I am really understanding less and less what Fedora is and where it is going. And that is ashame because, like so many in here, I dearly love this distro, but I am starting to become jaded.
Maybe your taste is changing. Why not discussing these on fedora-list?

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 07:38 PM
No need to be defensive. Your post seems to display the fear of change and new elements. You can choose to not install LVM , install Pirut instead Package thus practically customize your own Fedora.



Maybe your taste is changing. Why not discussing these on fedora-list?

I feel SO misunderstood. :p

But I will just let it go. The point was not what I can add or subtract or modify later. I COULD turn my Fedora install into an Ubuntu that uses .rpm. :)

Dan
26th June 2008, 08:07 PM
Hi FinalZone.

At the risk of stirring this pot ...

Well, maybe not. I'm beginning to think it actually needs a little stirring.

Please read through the two "Complaint" threads in my signature block. The first is more about trying to get a constructive dialog going, but the second contains the meat and potatoes of the issue. The voices expressing concern about the growing perception of a "disconnect" between the development community, and the user community are becoming more frequent, more strident and more troubling. One would expect a few grumbles anywhere change is involved, and of course, there will be disagreements about the direction things should take, but I am seeing an ever increasing number of long time fedora users getting a little disgusted and saying, essentially, "What the heck were those developers thinking?"

Some of this is inevitable, but the general perception in the community that normal communications channels -- which should provide feedback and other communications from the user base to the developers -- are increasingly being either closed or ignored. That may or may not be the case, but the perception that the user community is being deliberately shut out or ignored is, in my humble opinion, starting to harm the overall health of the community and the project.

I'm certainly not going to tell anyone else their business, but I think this issue could stand some "news" coverage, and some cogent discussion involving a direct dialog between these two elements of the fedora community, if for no other reason, to blow a little fresh air through the subject.


EDIT:

Dangitall! I'm getting a bit nervous about actually hitting the [POST] button on this one, because if someone brought a comment like that into my office, I'd tell them to, "write that up and have it on my desk by tomorrow."


Dan

Dies
26th June 2008, 08:21 PM
...

Dangitall! I'm getting a bit nervous about actually hitting the [POST] button on this one, because if someone brought a comment like that into my office, I'd tell them to, "write that up and have it on my desk by tomorrow."

..

You shouldn't be. ;)

Your analysis is spot on as far as I can tell.

leigh123linux
26th June 2008, 09:00 PM
Hi FinalZone.

At the risk of stirring this pot ...

Well, maybe not. I'm beginning to think it actually needs a little stirring.

Please read through the two "Complaint" threads in my signature block. The first is more about trying to get a constructive dialog going, but the second contains the meat and potatoes of the issue. The voices expressing concern about the growing perception of a "disconnect" between the development community, and the user community are becoming more frequent, more strident and more troubling. One would expect a few grumbles anywhere change is involved, and of course, there will be disagreements about the direction things should take, but I am seeing an ever increasing number of long time fedora users getting a little disgusted and saying, essentially, "What the heck were those developers thinking?"

Some of this is inevitable, but the general perception in the community that normal communications channels -- which should provide feedback and other communications from the user base to the developers -- are increasingly being either closed or ignored. That may or may not be the case, but the perception that the user community is being deliberately shut out or ignored is, in my humble opinion, starting to harm the overall health of the community and the project.

I'm certainly not going to tell anyone else their business, but I think this issue could stand some "news" coverage, and some cogent discussion involving a direct dialog between these two elements of the fedora community, if for no other reason, to blow a little fresh air through the subject.


EDIT:

Dangitall! I'm getting a bit nervous about actually hitting the [POST] button on this one, because if someone brought a comment like that into my office, I'd tell them to, "write that up and have it on my desk by tomorrow."


Dan

IMO the dev's hide on their pathetic mailing lists and ignore the end user :(
I used to report bug's till Jeremy Katz tried to palm off a yum plugin bug as a icedtea problem ( I didn't even have it installed ) .

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426697

This was the final straw for me as I rarely got a proper response if any to the bug reports I filed .

Finalzone
26th June 2008, 09:04 PM
Some of this is inevitable, but the general perception in the community that normal communications channels -- which should provide feedback and other communications from the user base to the developers -- are increasingly being either closed or ignored. That may or may not be the case, but the perception that the user community is being deliberately shut out or ignored is, in my humble opinion, starting to harm the overall health of the community and the project.

What is unfortunate are users forgot that those developers, not only are users as well but there are also volunteers who to contribute to the project. As a result, it becomes overwhelming for those contributors to address multiple issues because of the lack of manpower. Sometime, when developers ask for feedback, none has been provided.

I apologized if I misunderstood some posts and failed the point to effectively communicate. I guess I need to chill.

Dan
26th June 2008, 09:25 PM
... are also volunteers who to contribute to the project. ...

... Sometime, when developers ask for feedback, none has been provided.

Well, I've been pretty quick pointing that out too. In fact, several erstwhile trolls have fallen victim to "Spam Wars Sam" over that very same set of concepts.

I've also been loudly ignored when I've posted warnings that those who will not test or contribute, have little room to cry later. While Open Source certainly isn't brand new, it is a new discovery to many who are just learning it. The concept that they actually share some responsibilities as well as the perks is a bit foreign to the average recent Windows convert. <..:p..> The idea that commercial software is best suited to commercial uses has also escaped quite a few who were quite reasonably attracted by the fedora price tag. When they come crashing in here demanding support, though, they usually find their bums skidding on the porch on their way out.

But ... chilling out is a good idea too. It's coming right up on afternoon iced tea time, so I'll join you in a tall glass of "unsweet" chill.


Dan


EDIT: Methinks there might be some interesting fun to be had with a tongue in cheek article titled, "Developers. Human ... or something esle?" <..:p..>

JN4OldSchool
26th June 2008, 09:36 PM
Well, we have been awful hard on the developers here lately. They are people, just like the rest of us. Everyone is entitled to be a jerk sometimes, same as everyone can come across wrong now and then. I dont blame any developer in particular, though Leigh especially brings up many great points as far as the accessibility of the Fedora team as a whole. I dont care about any of that though, I see Fedora as a choice. I like the distro and I use it. I long ago gave up on any idea of paying anyone back or doing my part or whatever. I do not feel like a part of a community nor do I really want to. I am just another guy on a user forum with an opinion and who is willing to help when I can.

The problem I see is not the fault of the developers but rather a lack of leadership, of hierarchy, of strategy. The developers are off in their own little worlds, much like many of us are. This is what they do, they each have their own little vision of the whole. What is lacking is the coordination to assemble all these ideas into "Fedora." We have just had a change of leadership havent we? Shows how much I know...Maybe this is what is showing? It just seems to me that the locomotive took a sudden turn a few months ago but the rest of the train wasnt informed.

Personally speaking, there are only two choices for me. Use Fedora or use something else. I am happy using Fedora for now. Whatever flaws I feel are in the ISO release version are easily corrected. Trash beagle and packagekit, add yumex, install the development tools, get rid of the awful wallpaper and theme...Pretty soon I am home again! If I were boss...Yeah, I'd do many things different, starting with LVM. But...I'm not the boss, and actually kind of relieved that I am not. I can stay or i can go. That is what it boils down to.

I have to add, though, I really do get the feeling that the people responsible for Fedora are not listening, and that is too bad because this is one of 3-4 world class distros that set the standard.

Dan
26th June 2008, 09:54 PM
... If I were boss...Yeah, I'd do many things different, starting with LVM. But...I'm not the boss, and actually kind of relieved that I am not. I can stay or i can go. That is what it boils down to.

... .Yeah. That's a bug called called "volunteer freedom syndrome." Oddly enough, retirement or any close simulation thereof, tends to increase the infection rate. A lot! <..:p..>

scottro
27th June 2008, 02:48 AM
Well, as Steve Ballmer said, "Developers Developers" or whatever.
I assume they're all individuals. I know that on the testing list, when I politely suggested that a particular change should be documented, the developer working on it responded quickly and I think it was done the next day.

On bugzilla, I've found that some are rude, some are helpful and happy to explain why they're doing what they're doing, especially if you're polite. There's a difference in saying, "What moron decided to do this?" and "I don't see why this is being done this way. Won't it cause this problem?" (Which, judging from their behavior on these forums, the people who have mentioned poor responses from the developers did not do--hrrm, tortured syntax, I mean that I think the people on these forums were probably polite.)

Shucks, on a Debian developer list, there was a critical bug posted by one developer because another developer had added a very insulting comment about the first developer--it was quite obscene, so I won't post it here.

Another developer moved it from critical to minor. To an onlooker, it was a bit amusing.

Anyway, point being some of them are no doubt very helpful, others are probably doodie heads. One big problem is that between Fedora and RedHat, bugzilla has become totally massive and almost unusable.

Dan
27th June 2008, 03:23 AM
... One big problem is that between Fedora and RedHat, bugzilla has become totally massive and almost unusable. Ayup! Gutzon Borglum could carve that into a rock!

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if only ten percent of the users here actually did go file bug reports. <..:eek:..>

In short, methinks, it's high time we started looking for a better way to handle this.

Demz
27th June 2008, 03:46 AM
Ayup! Gutzon Borglum could carve that into a rock!

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if only ten percent of the users here actually did go file bug reports. <..:eek:..>

In short, methinks, it's high time we started looking for a better way to handle this.
abou the Bugzilla.. i know there trialing a new bugzilla 3.2? something like that ..lets hope its not as messed up as previous one is/was

JohnVV
27th June 2008, 03:52 AM
In short, methinks, it's high time we started looking for a better way to handle this.
I got spoiled on the Celestia forum the devs ,old time users and new people all talk and yes there can be some heated chat but show me a forum that dose not

Seve
27th June 2008, 03:54 AM
One big problem is that between Fedora and RedHat, bugzilla has become totally massive and almost unusable.Hello:
At any rate, we should all assume that the present state of Bugzilla is just fine with Redhat/Fedora.

If it was otherwise it would be changed. Just like any other issue in the corporate world.

Seve

LDC
29th June 2008, 04:34 PM
I tried both apt, synaptic and of course yum... honestly I am unable to see differences in speed terms, but that can depend on my lack on spot skills...

Jongi
10th July 2008, 07:39 PM
Are Pirut and PackageKit one and the same thing now?

Muneco
25th July 2008, 09:46 AM
My favourite quote is this:



This whole statement is pure cr*p. Yumex leaves PackageSpit standing in the water. It annoyed me so much I removed it from my system and just use yum from a Terminal and Yumex when I feel like using a GUI...

To be honest, I haven't read the whole thing, no time this morning!

http://www.linux.com/feature/137115

Wayne
Please Please Please tell me ... anyone... how can I remove PackageSpit??? Yes PackageKit

Need to lose it now.. stopping me from everything...

Thanks,

Muneco

Demz
25th July 2008, 09:50 AM
Please Please Please tell me ... anyone... how can I remove PackageSpit??? Yes PackageKit

Need to lose it now.. stopping me from everything...

Thanks,

Muneco
if you got Yumex just search for PackageKit an untick it an then remove it, but you can disable Packagekit in System Startup Programs

Thetargos
26th July 2008, 06:51 AM
Two things:

1) Am I the only one who actually despises Yumex?

I see PackageKit and PulseAudio at the same level. They both stem from necessity and both address fundamental infrastructural issues, which had to be addressed a long, long time ago. Better late than never. I don't like either current incarnations, but is thanks to these incarnations that we (the users) get to test them and they (the developers) can actually improve on them. I see both projects fundamentally important for the future of Destkop Linux in general and not only Fedora, and I'm proud that both these projects emerged from Fedora developers. It is not about reinventing the wheel (each distro has its way of handling their packages), it is about cross platform/distro consistency Linux compared to Mac or Windows or even *cough**hmm**cough* Solaris (excusme [coughs some more]) lacks cohesion. Heck even the *BSDs are much more cohesive and integral. In that regards Linux feels like just made jelly, you know it'll clot and have some consistency, but all is liquid and fuzzy and slippery. It was about time the major vendors started to agree that they all are part of one big community, the Linux community, which in turn is part of a bigger one in the Free Software, but the point is that the first step of setting an identity accepting we (devs, users, merketers, vendors, etc) are all part of the same community (Linux) is the first step. The second is to create an homogeneous environment at a base level. It used to be the tools, bare metal utils and inner parts of the distros that used to matter, nowadays, though, user experience is quickly falling into the same category, so a common feel, look and behavior across distros is much NEEDED. The different vendors and distros won't have to relinquish their own identities. They only have to reckon and see the larger picture that is the Linux community. And that's where these two projects (among many other "minor" or "aesthetic" projects ) intertwine . It was about DAMNED time it happened! Maybe in the next year we'll see some pretty interesting things regarding "The Linux Experience™" (or so I hope).

2) Do we [i]really need to discuss again the matter about Devs <--> Users relationship? It is US FedoraForum who are out of the loop, not them! Just today I was able to help identify a bug in Grip that had been haunting me since FC6, and I hadn't even [i]bothered[i] to report it, until today (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456721). It turns out it is an upstream problem, but at least we identified it today and hopefully will be addressed. We all make the community, we've turned this into some kind of "Us Vs Them", which is not healthy and ain't going to get better. The devs and the project at large don't have to monitor these forums, just as Oregon Police Officers don't have to patrol (or have any jurisdiction whatsoever in) California. It feels like two different entities, because they are! Sure both Californians and people from Oregon are Americans and part of the same country (just like FF.O and FP.O are part of the same community), but they have their own legislation and other identifying features that, even though part of a bigger community, are still apart (see my previous points about infrastructure, look, feel and behavior, IS THE FREAKING SAME!). Please let's not discuss this any longer, and act and do something to improve communication rather than shutting it down with nonsensical comments and remarks (I haven't seen any yet in this thread, but you know there have been plenty in the past).

And those are 2˘...

Dies
26th July 2008, 07:38 AM
... Am I the only one who actually despises Yumex? ...


Nope, you're not alone.

And although I agree with what you said in regards to pulse and packagekit, I really do wish they had at least left Pirut as an option until packagekit gets up to speed, sure Pirut also had some minor issues but still.

As far as the developers, there is definitely a huge disconnect between them and their users, to even try to deny that is silly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they should come here and waste their precious time trying to sift through a bunch of junk.

But I think this fact was highlighted even further with F9.

As a user, anyone could have figured out that shipping a beta X server for which no third party drivers are available or a package manager which isn't even close to ready is probably not a good idea.

As a developer, you may have other things to take into account, maybe a deadline, maybe a lack of manpower, or just the need to push forward. It may not be possible to make sure that the user experience is improved or at least matches your last release.

I personally won't complain because I understand that, I'm very patient and because I don't feel I have a right to, but I'm certainly not surprised, not even a little when others do. I'm sure the developers aren't either. ;)

In my case, I just waited a month to install it and now I'm pretty happy with F9. :D

Thetargos
26th July 2008, 08:52 AM
One thing I could say about PackageKit and Pirut. They should have included PackageKit in Fedora until it reached at least the same features Pirut has in F8. However, they seem to be coming and more importantly debuting in F9, so not much was wasted. I could have said the very same for PA, however PA has had some synergistic effect impacting other parts of the system. Mainly ALSA, since it (PA) was tested "in the wild" with F8 (AFAIK being the only distro to ship with it by default, and active back in November), has had many enhancements, also due to it other projects started to also adopt it and more importantly enhance the user experience when it came down to multiple sounds simultaneously in Linux, which before with ESD and aRTs was erratic at best, and a nightmare to setup at worst (with dmix). Maybe they should have waited 'till PA had at least the same functionality of ESD (which it now pretty much does in F9) back in F8, the only thing I regret is that they won't update F8's version up to par F9's PA (I suppose they'd have to change the whole ALSA backend... not hard, but surely beyond the scope of maintenance.


As a user, anyone could have figured out that shipping a beta X server for which no third party drivers are available or a package manager which isn't even close to ready is probably not a good idea.
Third party proprietary drivers aren't a priority to Fedora developers, but for users. And never has been stated that Fedora supports such drivers ;)

Actually another interesting thing might happen in time for F10 and that would be Kernel modesetting for ATi cards (R300 and up, most likely, since it would be through AtomBIOS which is not available in R100/200 parts AFAIK), this comes a bit before AMD dumped another update to their AtomBIOS parser, and guess who does the developer who made it possible work for? Red Hat, and this technology will premiere in Fedora. Maybe this even means AMD is pushing forward to a kernel-accepted AtomBIOS parser, and maybe, just maybe they can be done with a proprietary kernel-side driver and do with only the user-space X driver (only time will tell)... At any rate, my point is that many users got screwed up by this decision to include beta X code, but this decision also made it possible that in the lifespan of F9 there have been 3 other beta releases of the same XServer (of which, again, a Red Hat employee is the release manager). It was for me the main reason to skip F9 on my main rig (as I'm sure it is for many others as well).

The biggest chasm between users and developers seems to have been the number of people actually testing the distro prior to its release. That's why there is a Beta program, and while a LOT of people did test-drive F9, many did not test thoroughly enough (it would seem) the XServer part... Like it is the case currently, many simply decided to downgrade the XServer so that they could use proprietary drivers with the distro. That should have spoken volumes (I agree) that maybe they should have held onto XServer 1.5 until it was released, but like I said before, it was due to this very decision that there seems to be a more active XServer development (and hopefully F9 will get XServer 1.5 final before it reaches EOL).

Demz
26th July 2008, 09:48 AM
going from what i have read 2 Dozen Bugs have been fixed, 1 Dozen left to be fixed so i think Fedora9 will get the final before EOL, but i agree it was bad to ship a Beta X-Server/Xorg in fedora 9 but at that point wasnt Xorg7.3/X-Server 1.4 Bug ridden enough that it was even useless to ship that in fedora9.. going from that,, i do believe Mesa7.1 is holding up the final of Xorg7.4/X-Server1.5 correct?

JN4OldSchool
26th July 2008, 03:00 PM
Third party proprietary drivers aren't a priority to Fedora developers, but for users. And never has been stated that Fedora supports such drivers ;)



The biggest chasm between users and developers seems to have been the number of people actually testing the distro prior to its release. That's why there is a Beta program, and while a LOT of people did test-drive F9, many did not test thoroughly enough (it would seem) the XServer part... Like it is the case currently, many simply decided to downgrade the XServer so that they could use proprietary drivers with the distro. That should have spoken volumes (I agree) that maybe they should have held onto XServer 1.5 until it was released, but like I said before, it was due to this very decision that there seems to be a more active XServer development (and hopefully F9 will get XServer 1.5 final before it reaches EOL).

well la de da! Maybe Fedora developers need to get their heads out of their butts then and realize that most people want basic things such as 3D drivers and the ability to play mp3. I am NOT saying that the philosophy of keeping the release iso pure needs to change, I like how it is now. If I WANT mp3 capability then I can easily get that codec. Everyone stays clean. But the developers need to realize that releasing an iso that is not even capable of these things is a joke!

The biggest chasm between users and developers is not necessarily communication. It is confusion! It is good when the developers are coordinated and leading the charge, out in front of everyone else. Hey, we are Fedora, we are rushing forward ahead of the pack towards a common goal. Sure, we will be the first to run through the bullets, the thorns, the potholes...But we dont care about that because we want to be up front, leading the charge. But it seems that all of a sudden there is no common goal. No enemy to charge. instead we are all just up front running in many different directions. Is this a testing distro or is it a noob distro? Should we have basic functionality like the ability to use 3D driver and change a greeter screen, or should we be like Winders without the ability to change even basic stuff so we dont "screw things up." Why is it we cant seem to keep the functionality of things that already work? In many ways F9 feels like a step backwards. Like Dies, i am patient also. I understand there is new stuff going down. I will give it a chance. things like the broken xulrunner dont bother me, it is no big deal, it is what Fedora is about. But losing wireless that has worked for 4 releases now does bother me!

No, the lack of communication doesnt concern me. I am happy to use what they give me until the point when I look next door and see the neighbor's distro (the Mints) is better. I will state that even though F9 is adequate for me at this point, the only reason I am still hanging in here is brand loyalty. Many distros are currently better than Fedora, but I will stick around a while longer in hope of better things to come. I hope the devs get some sense of direction and bring the charging masses of fedora users back together into a spearhead charging the bleeding edge. I hope they get their focus back and push Fedora in one distinct direction and forget what everyone else is doing. It seems to me that they are currently trying to be a distro for everyone and this doesnt work. They need to go back to being Fedora.

Thetargos
26th July 2008, 07:03 PM
Demz, indeed. Now the hold up on XServer 1.5 final seems to be Mesa 7.1 (ironic, isn't it?), but Mesa 7.1 means formal OpenGL 2.something support, etc, etc.

@JN:
Is it a joke for who? Fedora (the project, for what it seems not its users) is an advocate of Free Software and Open Standards. Patent encumbered formats such .mp3 are better left alone. Sure this time around it would have seemed as if the developers cut users freedom of using closed drivers if they so choose to, but I strongly believe that F9 was truer to its basic principle of being a "testing" distro with the XServer release they shipped. Simply put, if it wasn't for it maybe the whole XServer release would have been held up, getting Xorg into an awkward situation, things apparently have been sorted out now, and all seems to be on track once again. You know better than most what is the philosophy behind Fedora, and I'm not speaking about its "testing" or reckless intrinsic nature here, but about pursuing and some times enforcing Open and Free standards. Just like Debian... But since Debian lags behind even with its testing systems they're relatively on the "safe-side", while Fedora is bolder and more reckless than most and tries to keep on top of things, some times too high up there (like the case in question) that it leaves its users behind, but that doesn't mean it is not done for the users.

I understand what you mean about that common goal... And indeed right now there's a general feeling of loss of direction. However there are more than one front now. Fedora has already established that it will keep on front of things. And now they are pursuing goals such as usability, accessibility, ease of use, management and even infrastructure... These all may seem diverging in nature, but they aim at one common goal: Linux Desktop as a viable option for both Windows and Mac, at the several levels they "compete". It is not the goal to be an alternative as such, but rather to get these basic things done. That is why it is so confusing in regards to being a "power distro" and at the same time a "noobish" distro... Right now (and I have always said that) Fedora offers the best of both worlds (IMVHO). However that is no excuse for the perceived lack of direction, which is reinforced by the lack of proper documentation in the official sites (thank you for bringing this up, I'll forward this discussion to the Marketing ML), which seem to further confuse users, especially NEW users who get to Fedora on their own without a helping hand to guide them and teach them the basics. I 1000% agree with that.

Like I said, the problem of the lack of direction (in my opinion, anyway) is that there are many more fronts to tackle toward the common goal of Linux Desktop which Fedora IS leading (kernel virtualization, kernel mode setting, PA, PackageKit, to name only a few!). What we are seeing now in F9 to me is more of a restructuring of sorts (like a disbanded fallback) to get back the troops together and charge into the future of Linux Desktop... This retreat, however I'm afraid will span through F9 and quite possibly F10 as well. Your input as an old timer is very important (or so I would like to think) about the perception of Fedora, and I do believer it is right to criticize it in the right proportion. You mentioned other distros are better. And indeed they are! For example *buntu and SuSE do not have the same bleeding edge goals of Fedora, their focus are the user, and both have adopted technologies pioneered by Fedora (pretty much since FC5!) into their recent releases. Mint is a good example of a "distilled" distro which has incorporated what advancements there have been in MANY fronts. To quote yourself, use whatever is useful to you, I do appreciate you sticking around Fedora as an old timer you can have broader view of things or see them with a different perspective. Even help those in command to better steer their efforts, or simply educate (as you often do) the newbies here in the forums; or do nothing. It's your choice.

hughsient
9th September 2008, 03:25 PM
Why cant they just use Yumex? Sometimes I really wonder what these people are thinking...
yumex is a GTK application that runs as root. This is a massive security hole. No iffs, no butts.

hughsient
9th September 2008, 03:28 PM
Please Please Please tell me ... anyone... how can I remove PackageSpit??? Yes PackageKit Need to lose it now.. stopping me from everything...
Please file bugs.

LDC
9th September 2008, 07:15 PM
yumex is a GTK application that runs as root. This is a massive security hole. No iffs, no butts.
this is interesting... packagekit can work without the need of root authentication?
is there a way to prevent users to run it? (without involving ACL)
the problem in running a GTK apps as root reside in GTK itself? Why? (I mean, to use yum you also need to be root...).
Is packagekit somehow related to SMART (which is claimed to be the future substitute for all distros package's managers...)?
Sorry for the amount of questions but the subject is really interesting :p

bpepple
9th September 2008, 09:10 PM
this is interesting... packagekit can work without the need of root authentication?
is there a way to prevent users to run it? (without involving ACL)
the problem in running a GTK apps as root reside in GTK itself? Why? (I mean, to use yum you also need to be root...).
Is packagekit somehow related to SMART (which is claimed to be the future substitute for all distros package's managers...)?
Sorry for the amount of questions but the subject is really interesting :p

By default, PackageKit uses PolicyKit for user authentication. This means that you, as an admin, can specify with fine-grained control what your users can and cannot do. For instance, an admin could specify that unprivileged users can update the system and do searching, but are not allowed to install or remove packages. For home users it's typical to ask the user for their own, or the administrator's "root" password.

For more info at PolicyKit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolicyKit

LDC
9th September 2008, 10:03 PM
uh...thanks for the answer, I see a package named PolicyKit.i386 , will this work with just my fluxbox? (even totally getting rid of Gnome?)

RahulSundaram
10th September 2008, 06:58 AM
Hi,

PackageKit doesn't have any dependency on GNOME. gpk-application runs fine in other desktop environments as well.

LDC
10th September 2008, 02:05 PM
hi rahul :)
then I need to install the GPK stuff... mmmh....ok, I will give it a shot.

edit: uh, trying to launch Package Installer I get

"Could not launch menu item"
"Failed to execute child process "/usr/bin/gpk-install-file" (No such file or directory)" :(

RahulSundaram
10th September 2008, 02:18 PM
Hi,

There is no need to call gpk-install-file manaually ever. The application is called gpk-application and other commands are not meant to be directly called.

LDC
10th September 2008, 02:23 PM
uh ok, thanks :)

Bobthebastard
11th October 2008, 11:37 AM
The explanation is due to packageit upgrades that no longer allow a gui install of rpms unless they are repo sourced. Namely, you download an rpm and try to install using package installer, it fails. This was not apparent under 8 or 9 before the new repo "newkey" sources. You can still install your package using RPM via terminal RPM -ivh 'packagename' as root.

I will add this is how I have had to 'do it' since the repo changes. And its possible i havnt installed all the updates required to make it work correctly, but meh.

Good luck.

Finalzone
12th October 2008, 12:59 AM
The explanation is due to packageit upgrades that no longer allow a gui install of rpms unless they are repo sourced. Namely, you download an rpm and try to install using package installer, it fails. This was not apparent under 8 or 9 before the new repo "newkey" sources. You can still install your package using RPM via terminal RPM -ivh 'packagename' as root.

Obvious problem with your method, you are using rpm command (which is not designed to solve dependcy instead of yum which allow to install package while solving its dependencies (yum localinstall <packagename> after downloading that package). Packagekit is just a fronted that uses yum (in Fedora case) or other package managets like apt, conary.

Bobthebastard
12th October 2008, 01:07 AM
Original method allowed a nautilus install by right-click of package and install with package manager. This appears to no longer work, so obviously either its a problem for me with out of date packages, but I must query that RPM does in fact handle depency resolution without a hitch for the most part. Was not aware of a local install option, will try this at a later point.
:D RPM and yum should both handle "it" although yum is better suited IMHO.

Finalzone
12th October 2008, 02:17 AM
Original method allowed a nautilus install by right-click of package and install with package manager. This appears to no longer work, so obviously either its a problem for me with out of date packages, but I must query that RPM does in fact handle depency resolution without a hitch for the most part.
Probably a tiny details was neglected. =) The right-click on package with nautilusworks fine. Perhaps you got a bug.

Segovia Photos - Tizi Ouzou - Kirikkale Photos on Instagram