544
votes
|
|
669
0
125
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
suzzlo
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 17:55
|
|
|
|
second link doesn't work :-(
|
|
suzzlo
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 17:57
|
|
|
|
It work! sorry about previous comment.
|
|
v1ncent
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:21
|
|
|
ABSOLUTELY! PackageKit it's awesome .
Please people, vote for this, because we doesn't have an universal installer, and that's OK, bt not so good.
PackageKit give us a wonderful solution to this, we could use yum, conary, apt-get, box, zypp, emerge and
other backends (maybe in the future SuSe metapackage, klik and others).
We really need to support projects like this!
|
|
mguymon
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:35
|
|
|
|
A bold project idea and would be great to see it actually work, but I am worried it might tread in murky waters. It would be an interesting to emerge Apache with dependencies on an apt'd PHP deb using a yum'd xml lib from a rpm. I imagine things would be murky when you have to figure out dependencies spanning different methods of dependency management.
|
|
sparc128
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 05:03
|
|
|
|
Seems to me Fedora/Centos needs this more than Ubuntu right now but it does have some good layouts so I think it would help relieve resources on all distro's if they standardized on it.
|
|
Ferdil
wrote on the 4 May 08 at 13:18
|
|
|
|
NOW it doesn't support it completely. In the near future it will.
|
|
|
|
I hope the packagekit guys make apt support by 8.10
|
|
|
No!
Ubuntu already has add/remove.
Package kit is the same, except is user interface sucks more.
It will be a huge regression in usability if add/remove is replaced with packagekit. I've already submitted a bug to the packageKit developers about the user-interface not having a specific target group in mind and the interface being too scary for novice users. ("stop scaring my mom").
There is so much wrong with it, this is just a first list:
- it prominently uses the package-names rather human names.
- it does not use icons from the packages.
- it does visually distinguish between packages installed and those not installed
- there is no way to just get a list of installed software
- it does not search as we type
- the categories are not related to the menu
It's as scary as synaptic, yet as weak as add/remove.
Honestly, its a piece of crap. Ubuntu has the user-interface for package management already perfected.
Replacing add/remove and synaptic with packageKit is unexceptable. I'm pretty sure, everybody is going to talk about how much it sucks and how its a regression.
Not the type of people that come to brainstorm. But the majority of the users will stop installing software themselves. PackageKIT is so not ready. (and until it's a complete duplicate of add/remove, it won't be).
Please don't do this!
|
|
Nazo
wrote on the 8 Jun 08 at 13:34
|
|
|
|
Noooooooo!
|
|
|
|
PackageKit will not replace apt-get, I think. It's like an "addon" to apt-get, and it makes people who want to distribute software on linux lives much easier.
|
|
|
Everybody who disagrees with this is just retarded. Every usability problem with PackageKit will be fixed, or is already being worked upon.
PackageKit is amazing at insuring much better standardization. It's an absolute must!
+1
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 15:15
|
|
|
Vadim is right..
------SNIP-----------
PackageKit is a system designed to make installing and updating software on your computer easier. The primary design goal is to unify all the software graphical tools used in different distributions, and use some of the latest technology like PolicyKit to make the process suck less.
The actual nuts-and-bolts distro tool (yum, apt, conary, etc) is used by PackageKit using compiled and scripted helpers. PackageKit isn't meant to replace these tools, instead providing a common set of abstractions that can be used by standard GUI and text mode package managers.
PackageKit itself is a system activated daemon called packagekitd. Being system activated means that it's only being run when the user is using a text mode or graphical tool, and quits when it's no longer being used. This means we don't delay the boot sequence or session startup and don't consume memory when not being used.
--------------END SNIP-------------
|
|
|
I'm not talking about the nuts-and-bolts.
I'm talking about the actual interface of the packageKit gui's.
THEY ARE HORRIBLE.
The intentions are all nice, and perhaps someday the gui will be acceptable enough to ship by default. But until then Ubuntu should stick with its guns.
PackageKit gui's is not modelled after add/remove in Ubuntu. It looks more like an bad mockup where no thought went it, and the HIG was completely ignored.
If the authors of PackageKit had any intention of getting it right, they would have started with Ubuntu's add/remove interface as a reference point. Instead they created something with a UI from the stone-ages.
I still can't imagine what they were thinking when they designing the GUI for it. I'm not even sure they were thinking.
Replacing add/remove with packageKit is completely unacceptable. Anyone that ever worked with both add/remove and packageKit should be able to verify that.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 10 Jun 08 at 02:43
|
|
|
|
Yeah, they clearly state that the packagekit gui is under development. But there is no reason why we couldn't patch synaptic to use packagekit as the backend i'd imagine
|
|
|
|
You'll may use gnome-app-install, update-manager, etc as frontend. You do not need to use these demo frontends!
|
|
|
No, Ralf is right. I just finished a Fedora 9 session, and MY GOD PackageKit is horrible!
Don't let hype override firm design principles, PackageKit is NOT ready, both for general use and the apt PM
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 18 Jul 08 at 09:25
|
|
|
|
Are you speaking about the interface or the integration though derubermensch? Because technically, I'd imagine it should be possible to convert synaptic to exclusively use packagekit.
|
|
|
The graphical interface is useless. I also don't see the point of PackageKit when aptitude, apt-get, synaptic, and add/remove are perfectly good and work now.
What do you mean by 'convert Synaptic to exclusively use packagekit'? Synaptic is already a graphical abstraction of apt, why would you put another abstraction under it? Am I missing something?
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 19 Jul 08 at 01:54
|
|
|
Ok, thats maybe why you don't understand the benefits. Packagekit is a standardised means of accessing any package control system. So its no longer necessary to design programs for RPM, APT, or whatever. With Packagekit, it should be possible to program your packaging program, without worrying about the backend (it will work with APT, RPM, whatever).
Its more then just a frontend. Its the backend that does all the magic, and makes it possible for developers to create universal packaging systems.
|
|
|
At present there are no benefits to PackageKit. It isn't even ready for alpha testing. They threw it into Fedora 9 at the last minute, and its abhorrent. I've installed Fedora 9 on 4 machines and it failed to do anything but tell you that you have updates.
I've never been so shocked at such a lack of competence in software developement in my entire life.
All of you Ubuntu users be very afraid when PackageKit comes your way if its handled like they did in Fedora.
At present, most linux forums and wikis that have walk thrus for installing software and etc. for Fedora 9 tell you to first do a yum remove PackageKit.
|
|
Vadim P.
wrote on the 30 Jul 08 at 19:05
|
|
|
Surely it can improve in 6 months?
And this won't be the main method of installation... just support for it for now. apt will still be the main
|
|
coolen
wrote on the 7 Aug 08 at 14:03
|
|
|
There's nothing saying you have to use PackageKit's frontends. Synaptic certainly won't. The features it uses are simplly out of PK's scope.
We could always build our own. That's no problem.
The important thing, in my opinion, is allowing developers to pull in dependancies with minimal user interaction. If they can depend on PK being there, they can simply call out to it, ask for a package (or a package providing a certain file), and the requested functionality is in place.
One possible use case would be Totem/Rhythmbox. Code could be added upstream to pull in restricted codecs. All Ubuntu would need to do is provide them.
|
|
|
|
Any update on the status for Jaunty, I would really love to see PackageKit installed by default in Ubuntu. Having used the tools for a while on Foresight and Fedora I find them superior to any of the existing vendor bound solutions and I love the promise of integration.
|
|
umonkey
wrote on the 17 Nov 08 at 09:08
|
|
|
|
The best thing about PK is not the interface, it's that developers can write software that installs additional components on demand (like gstreamer installs codecs) without having to support many different backends.
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 24 Dec 08 at 03:36
|
|
|
|
Hopefully PK will be default in Jaunty soon. Real soon!
|
|
|
So the different linux distribs have different package managers. So what? Generally software is packaged into each of them and they work good. Would adding another layer help? It might do the opposite by adding more complication. Package management is one of the best things linux has going and not a problem, so I am not sure of the need for this.
You know what is problematic in Linux is the installation of hardware. Why isn't there some kind of package management solution for this? What if you want to install mplayer, a dvb card and a remote control?
If PK could purpose itself to broaden the concept of Package Management to install drivers, modules, configs for the hardware that works with software, it would be very useful. Otherwise you are just trying to improve things that people are already happy with.
See my related idea:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/12995/
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 10 Jan 09 at 20:54
|
|
|
|
Would be nice to have Smart package manager as the backend to Packagekit.
|
|
Endolith
wrote on the 14 Jan 09 at 15:57
|
|
|
Everybody who disagrees with this is just retarded. Every usability problem with PackageKit will be fixed, or is already being worked upon.
So let's wait until the usability problems are fixed before using it by default.
|
|
|
|
@Endolith: May be that's reason why it's being implemented on Jaunty and wasn't on intrepid...
|
|
olskar
wrote on the 31 Mar 09 at 15:06
|
|
|
|
This does not seem to get into Jaunty either?
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it will even get into Karmic Koala. I propose Canonical to support aptdaemon development.
|
|
|
|
change update manager and add/remove, by package kit
|
|
coolen
wrote on the 30 Apr 09 at 07:22
|
|
|
According to the feature matrix, APT is now the second-best supported manager (beaten by YUM) by features and among the best by filters.
The missing features and filters are either not supported by APT currently or are not revealed in the UI of either Add/Remove or Update Manager.
This is far better than the last time I checked (admittedly too long ago) so it seems fairly obvious that someone out there is prepping for this idea. Hopefully by Karmic, we'll be able to play with this :)
|
|
|
|
Packagekit is awesome..One of it's targets is to solve usability issues with other packaging systems
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 28 May 09 at 00:34
|
|
|
Argh!! I cannot believe Packagekit has been given the boot again!!
It would make a lot more sense integrating AppCenter with Packagekit giving Ubuntu/Kubuntu that uniqueness of Packagekit yet Packagekit can continue to grow with the input of a growing number of Distros!
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 28 May 09 at 00:38
|
|
|
|
Cannot believe its been turned down AGAIN this time for Karmic in favour of something that barely exists. Despite all the support for it here. They may as well just shut down this website too since it seems pointless.
|
|
|
|
Please have PackageKit in Karmic.
|
|
|
|
In the midst of the current standardization effort happening across Linux Distros, I'm also disappointed this is being turned down for AppCenter. :(
|
|
|
So is this going into Karmic or not?
IMHO, PackageKit is the first step towards standardization of the many distros, which is a GOOD thing. Step 2 is to make sure debs work across all deb based distros and rpms work across all rpm based distros. Then ISVs only have to produce three packages: Universal DEB, Universal RPM, & Universal binary tarball. Look at World of Goo, for example.
|
|
|
|
Also, PackageKit uses PolicyKit, which the current Synaptic suite does not. That right there is +100 to PackageKit.
|
|
Endolith
wrote on the 11 Jun 09 at 15:58
|
|
|
|
So PackageKit is being ignored and Canonical is creating their own program AppCenter that does exactly the same thing? Do I have this right?
|
dstansby
(Idea reviewer)
wrote on the 13 Jun 09 at 15:29
|
|
|
|
Packagekit isn't being used in karmic, so please could this idea be either deleted or moved to "No milestone"
|
|
ziroday
(Brainstorm moderator)
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 03:30
|
|
|
|
Milestone removed against Karmic, however this is true in Kubuntu
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 20 Jun 09 at 16:38
|
|
|
I have submitted a bug report, Bug #389935, requesting that Ubuntu Karmic(Gnome) be released in 2 versions. One with AppCenter installed as default and the other with Packagekit installed by default.
I feel its only fair to those that have voted here and those that have supported it in the Forums.
So please go and show your support once again and add to the bug entry guys.
|
|
Slug71
wrote on the 3 Sep 09 at 13:50
|
|
|
I have submitted this bug report on AppCenter now known as Ubuntu Software Store to use/be based on Packagekit instead of gnome-app-install.
Please go add to it.
Bug #423718
|
Post your comment
|
Blueprint packagekit-intrepid:
