Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Adding a conflicts to yum against zif was a inappropriate use of
> conflicts and must have been resolved in a better way. The animosity
> between people working on competing solutions is leading to a proposal
> which really wouldn't fly. Having said that, I think zif needs to be
> command line compatible and support delta RPMs by default for it to be
> the default backend for the desktop and I really don't think desktop
Delta RPM support is listed as one of the 3 things which don't work yet, so
I'm pretty sure it's planned.
(That said, there definitely needs to be a way to disable it, and maybe it
should even be disabled by default. I personally always uninstall yum-
presto. For me, it's much faster to just download packages than to rebuild
them from deltas. Only users on really slow connections benefit from it.)
> environments should have a different dep resolver from the rest of
> Fedora.
While I think Fedora would benefit from using zif throughout (mainly because
it's in a compiled language, not in Python), I don't agree that this should
be a requirement for using zif in PackageKit. PackageKit should use what is
best suited for its needs, which yum clearly isn't.
> I don't know if I want to use zif yet but Richard Hughes
> should aim for a comprehensive solution instead of just addressing the
> PackageKit problem in a narrow way because I think the problem
> PackageKit is facing is also true for other tools. Libguestfs has
> already come out as an example.
Richard Hughes is being receptive to other uses of zif than PackageKit, see
the subthread with Richard W.M. Jones.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
