[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openlmi-devel
Subject:    Re: the future of software provider
From:       Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh () redhat ! com>
Date:       2014-01-13 12:37:49
Message-ID: 52D3DE1D.1010704 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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

On 01/13/2014 06:55 AM, Michal Minář wrote:
> Hello dear OpenLMI followers.
> 
> I'd like to know your opinion on migrating LMI Software Provider
> to PackageKit. In particular what priority does it have?
> 
> All the pros and cons are listed in upstream ticket: 
> https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/199
> 
> Certainly this migration is desired. What I'd like to know is
> whether this shall take precedence over other feature requests
> targeted for OpenLMI 1.1.0. If not, yum implementation would get
> some enhancements, but rewrite would be delayed thanks to them, and
> it would take more time to complete it.
> 
> Main features to be implented in software provider: * listing
> updates * listing package dependencies * support for mass update
> 

For clarity, these ^^^ are the features that could potentially be
delayed by a rewrite to a PackageKit back-end.

> I'm in favor of making the rewrite the highest priority. What do 
> you think?

Let's discuss this at today's public IRC meeting (acknowledging that
it's a little short notice and we will still listen to email-based
responses as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLT3h0ACgkQeiVVYja6o6MwSACfVqPLPip1KtXTZ3oMkEw82zJm
8RUAnRk9cG/VMKeEotEgiVRw+OwcPhvm
=dcdS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
openlmi-devel mailing list
openlmi-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]