Slashdot Mirror

This issue isn't exclusive to Fedora. PackageKit is (or was) destined to be the package and update framework for many distributions. Fedora got hit first because it's the distribution which usually had been going for the cutting edge. Fortunately everyone else will be spared the hassle of damage control and setting the developer straight. This whole uproar may inspire a better focus on scrutinizing the whole *Kit approach, which is IMO a good thing.

I'm not sure about the current development structure but I think it would be optimal to get more developer feedback from other distributions on the *Kit framework. This project looks like it really could use more transparency and QA, especially when it's going to be responsible for desktop security across many distributions.

I don't particularly care how UNIX has always worked.

Let's hope that quote won't get him a place in the "famous last words" fortune of UNIX security.

That was an old link that I supplied and the correct name for PK is a catalog. The idea is that it's more appropriate to define such relationships at a level higher than that of actual package (whether .deb, .rpm or whatever) relationships. That way if you want to be able to provide a simple way for someone to get the ideal environment for developing on Whizzbang compiler with Whacko-lib then you can provide the catalog and it will work not just for rpm-based systems, but also deb-based and whatever else. http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html#catalogs

There are already open source projects for this kind of functionality.

PackageKit already have a basic start for something like this.

The web frontend for PackageKit can be further developed. The web software developers should be encouraged to develop simple web based configuration for their applications.

Easy to configure web based applications with PackageKit based package management have a lot of positive aspects.
PackageKit - Main Page
PackageKit - Screenshots

Installing public web pages from tarballs has always been a major potential security problem. It makes total sense to use the distros packages and security maintenance for web applications.

There are already open source projects for this kind of functionality.

PackageKit already have a basic start for something like this.

The web frontend for PackageKit can be further developed. The web software developers should be encouraged to develop simple web based configuration for their applications.

Easy to configure web based applications with PackageKit based package management have a lot of positive aspects.
PackageKit - Main Page
PackageKit - Screenshots

Installing public web pages from tarballs has always been a major potential security problem. It makes total sense to use the distros packages and security maintenance for web applications.

and if I want to download a program and install it, it is not intuitive like it is in windows

Have you used a recent distribution with packagekit lately? (i.e. Fedora)

It's way easier than windows package management

http://www.packagekit.org/pk-screenshots.html

In my mind Linux has one major problem - too many different subsystems for developers - KDE or GNOME, RPM or DEB etc.

Desktop Environments are really irrevelant, whether it's GTK+ or QT (KDE) based or something different, it will still run on your DE of choice.

Packagekit solves a lot of problems on the package management front-end, providing a one-stop abstraction for package management regardless of what format is underneath (deb,rpm,etc).

http://www.packagekit.org/pk-intro.html

http://packagekit.org/

PackageKit is actually a just a tool which sits on top of yum and does not replace it. It does replace pup and pirut though.

See PackageKit site of the release notes.