On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Mark <markg85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1. While i was searching for my packages to install (in this case > mplayer) i was looking at the bold font. My first idea that that was > the name of the package but no someone somewhere decided to make the > short package description in BOLD and first.. making it hard to find > the package name itself because that's just not there (the rpm name > is! but the package name that is defined in the rpm spec file is > nowhere to be found. I think that should be written in bold then the > description below it and the rpm name + architecture should not even > be there The decision to highlight the bolded information has been an upstream design choice, and its been a subject of debate even among fedora developers in the past. It's upstream's design choice, and upstream means for it to be consistent across distributions. To get it changed you'll have to get upstream to change it, and that may require a cross-distribution consensus discussion. I'm not sure what you are refering to by "packagename" I see the packagename-version-release.arch just underneath the bolded summary text in my mplayer search listings at the moment. The packagename is encoded in the rpm name is it not? > 2. WTF All my packages are double... which ones do i need? That I don't currently see happening on my x86 system. Is yours a 64bit system? Do you see a 32bit AND a 64bit version for each package? If so, those are not technically duplicates. I do a search for mplayer on my 32bit F10 system and I get only one listing per item, no duplicates. Now maybe the UI for multiarch situations isn't optimal, but if it isn't its a discussion for upstream development. > 3. Oke, mplayer is done installing now and now it asks me to run it..why? Another upstream design decision. This is functionality that shows up with applications which appear in the menus and have .desktop files. installing mplayer did not do this. installing gnome-mplayer did. I don't see an obvious way to turn this off. > 4. Another (minor) thing. This may not be PackageKit's fault directly, but maybe a problem with the default authorization policy provided managed by PolicyKit. If you open up the Authorizations gui. System->Administration->Authorizations And look under the packagekit actions which have authorizations associated with them: org.freedesktop.packagekit.system-trust-signing-key This action controls when a key is to be imported into the rpm keyring. By default is configured to require admin authorization each time. It could be changed to automatically allow console user to do it without a authorization check. is that default the wrong default? I don't know. If its the wrong policy for you personally, that's easily editted in the Authorizations gui. Let me stress this. PackageKit is asking PolicyKit for action authentication. PackageKit is not deciding to ask you for a password. PolicyKit is. PolicyKit has default policies in place for a number of actions. Those policies can be edited to change the behaviour if the default isn't to your liking. Yes the PolicyKit idea is sort of new so it might take a little getting use to. But once you get it, its quite flexible in allowing you to define an authorization policy that makes sense for you. Maybe you just want to authorize as the sysadmin once per session for all actions..you can do that. Maybe you just want the active console user to be authorized without a password for any PolicyKit controlled action... you can do that too. Maybe you want to grant or deny specific users access to specific actions regardless if they are at the console or not... you can do that too. -jef -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
