Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> A PackageKit backend for dnf5 would also work and I have no doubt it
> will happen regardless. Surely that'd be the best option for Fedora if
> dnfdaemon does not have the same D-Bus API that PackageKit does,
> because pushing dnf-specific code into upstream projects when
> PackageKit exists is not very friendly.
Pushing DNF-specific code is also unlikely to happen for projects such as
KDE Plasma Discover, so if we want those to keep working, we will need the
PackageKit D-Bus API implemented one way or the other.
> But Red Hat has a conflicting goal: we don't want to maintain PackageKit
> anymore!
I think that if Red Hat drops PackageKit, it will be completely dead. The
whole idea of having one common API for all distros has already failed,
because many distros have stuck or reverted to defaulting to tools directly
using their native package manager / dependency solver. Some of those
already emulate the PackageKit D-Bus API.
Even for Fedora, dnfdragora is already used by many users (including me),
and now Red Hat wants to port more stuff to dnf5 directly, away from
PackageKit. And Fedora is a distribution where PackageKit works *well*.
(E.g., I use plasma-pk-updates for my system updates and it just works.) On
Arch-based distributions, PackageKit is absolutely horrible (because the
PackageKit alpm (pacman) backend is very poorly maintained). E.g., Discover
just fails spectacularly at upgrading Manjaro. Only the native tools
(pacman, pamac, etc.) work there.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
