On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Since i was the one who suggested it.. :) I do understand you but, if
> the KDE alternative is just giving a very basic functionality and is
> having problems (VPN IIRC) then we should consider using what works
> well, gives more output, does not suggest (again at the beginning of
> an update to reboot) stupid things.
Uh, VPN problems are a NM/KNM issue, not a KPK one.
Whoops, i mixed a NetworkManager issue in here, sorry :)
The "suggests a reboot too early" bug is bizarre indeed, I
should look if I
can silence those reboot prompts. (I'm for silencing them entirely, KDE
users are smart enough to know when they need to restart their computer. ;-)
It'd also probably be the fastest way to zap that bug once and for all.)
Another thing I noticed is that KPK doesn't recognize different update types
anymore after the latest PK update. :-(
I think what needs to happen here is that more people need to test PK
updates in testing and that those updates need to be BLOCKED from getting
pushed to stable if they break KPK. Throwing out KPK is entirely the wrong
solution for such regressions introduced by PK updates. (Neither of the
above bugs happened before the latest PK update. It's not KPK's fault that
PK breaks backwards compatibility under it.)
One problem is that PK/KPK (and GPK, too) moves so fast that, even when I'm
running the latest Fedora release, I'm still always running an already
deprecated branch, so spending time fixing things might not pay off. (But on
the other hand, F12 still has 9 months or so to live, so I guess fixing F12
issues is beneficial in any case.)
I feel sorry there. I know you have already a lot of work and you do a
great job. I badly need to learn to code to be able to help out a bit
more.
> KPK is in my eyes, ugly, unreliable and too basic. I suggested to
you
> as well to try the latest GNOME-packagekit to see what i mean.
> I think KPK is on it's way, but not yet ready.
Yet KPK just works. (Neither of the above 2 bugs is a showstopper, they're
just minor annoyances that can be easily worked around.)
Well, yeah, it "just" works. It would be good if that two annoyances
are fixed. I know how hard it is sometimes, for various reasons. And
yes, it needs moar testing. I will help out more with testing it, even
i'm a yum updater ;)
> If we dont want to lose users to GNOME because of not fully
working,
> suggesting stupid things KDE apps, we might better use the
> alternative, even if it's written GTK/GTK+.
> By the way, should everybody use the GNOME SPIN as well because there
> are no QT alternatives for the installed system-config-* utility's in
> the KDE SPIN? ;)
We actually do have alternatives for some of them, but the GTK+ app gets
dragged in by Anaconda's dependencies. :-( For example, there is KUser in
kdeadmin which can be used instead of system-config-users. This Anaconda
dependency bloat is one of the unsolved problems. Others are stuff I use
once and never again (e.g. system-config-selinux, to turn the crap off and
never look at it again). It's not the same as a package updater which users
will be running daily.
Indeed, that makes it hard to have alternatives installed with the
livecd as we have still the good-old-700MB ones. But to be honest, i
don`t care that much what is used for that system-config-* stuff. Same
here, i use them once in a while. Most times if i use one of them,
just because i'm curious about changes or if a user reports a problem
with it ;)
--
LG Thomas
Dubium sapientiae initium