[oe] [PATCH] packagekit: Updated to 0.8.13

[Koen Kooi]

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

Paul Eggleton schreef op 28-11-13 11:32:
> Hi Koen / Felipe,
> 
> On Thursday 28 November 2013 10:22:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Felipe F. Tonello schreef op 28-11-13 01:56:
>>> From: "Felipe F. Tonello" <eu at felipetonello.com> This recipe supports
>>> the backend for packagekit dynamically based on the IMAGE_PKGTYPE.
>> 
>> NAK! IMAGE_FEATURES should *never* change non-image recipe params.
>> This breaks using feeds horribly.
> 
> IMAGE_PKGTYPE is influenced by PACKAGE_CLASSES; so this is not about 
> IMAGE_FEATURES, and correct me if I'm wrong but maintaining package feeds
>  would generally preclude switching to an alternative package manager,
> right?

No, it's perfectly possible to build both opkg and rpm, which is what I'm
currently doing. When doing that the DISTRO.conf does need to make a
decision on what to support for things like packagekit.

> Some options:
> 
> 1) Apply the patch as-is. Changing the order/value of PACKAGE_CLASSES
> will mean this and anything that depends upon it will rebuild.
> 
> 2) Install the appropriate backend via some code in the image recipe. 
> Obviously this means you have to do this for every image recipe though.
> 
> 3) Use non-dynamic PACKAGECONFIG. Of course this means you'll have to
> remember to change this manually if you change PACKAGE_CLASSES or it'll
> just be broken at runtime.
> 
> Honestly, option 1 sounds like the best course to me here. This is rather
> a special case compared to other recipes.

1) will let you end up with packagekit_1.0.ipk that only supports RPM
2) Is what we would really want, but I don't think packagekit supports that :(

So that leaves 3, which makes it a clear DISTRO decision, like it should be.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFSlx+uMkyGM64RGpERAklsAJ0dtXhGERpNu+IizQN05XNliTk50wCfR8nl
xGpfq7tjqZPsx1V0hSYW5qs=
=1or8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----