What DON'T you like about Packagekit? [Archive]

View Full Version : What DON'T you like about Packagekit?

Slug71

June 19th, 2009, 06:18 PM

So i'm one of those people that really like Packagekit and would like to see it become the standard frontend for Linux package management.

Now that doesn't mean i think Packagekit is perfect or even close to. There certainly is room for improvement.

I am still however very disspointed that it has been dropped for Ubuntu.

So i'm curious about what other people dont like about Packagekit and or what kind of improvements/features you would like to see?

OutOfReach

June 19th, 2009, 06:28 PM

I really enjoy PackageKit and have it installed in Jaunty right now.

I use PackageKit's update manager instead of the default Update Manager, I also use it's Add/Remove utility
The only things that I don't like is that it doesn't seem to automatically update (i.e. gets lists in the background and notifies me of updates), I also don't like that you can't edit software sources either, but thats minor since I usually do manually edit the /etc/apt/sources.list file.

SunnyRabbiera

June 19th, 2009, 06:32 PM

Yeh Packagekit isnt as easy to add repositories for as synaptic, there is a lot more about packagekit I dont care for right now and I still think synaptic is the best package manager.

Therion

June 19th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Thus far it has refused to fix me breakfast in bed.

I remain hopeful a future release will correct this glaring oversight.

RiceMonster

June 19th, 2009, 06:48 PM

Thus far it has refused to fix me breakfast in bed.

I remain hopeful a future release will correct this glaring oversight.

You have to enable that option, duh.

madjr

June 19th, 2009, 06:52 PM

well at least kpackagekit in kubuntu needs tons of work (wouldn't let me even change sources and it's tad confusing/limited)

had to install synaptic n add/remove (gnome-app-install)

bigbrovar

June 19th, 2009, 07:37 PM

madjr
Re: What DON'T you like about Packagekit?
well at least kpackagekit in kubuntu needs tons of work (wouldn't let me even change sources and it's tad confusing/limited) do people actually change sources list from synaptic? .. i always fond it easier to change my sources directly from /etc/apt/sources.list .. there i get to have it commented and it just easier to maintain .. different strokes i guess

Chemical Imbalance

June 19th, 2009, 07:40 PM

What DON'T you like about Synaptic? :D

Therion

June 19th, 2009, 08:35 PM

You have to enable that option, duh.
Mmmm... Yes, so it seems.

Well... You've won THIS TIME, RicePilaf, but I'll be back!!

/shakes fist

What DON'T you like about Synaptic? :D
LOL.

The cut your proverbial "jib"... I'm liking it.

gnomeuser

June 19th, 2009, 11:02 PM

I had to admit I am not that fond of the new updater, aside that I am very impressed both with what PackageKit does today and what it promises for the future. It's a very elegant solution.

fatality_uk

June 19th, 2009, 11:57 PM

Thus far it has refused to fix me breakfast in bed.

I remain hopeful a future release will correct this glaring oversight.

:D :lolflag: :D

Slug71

June 20th, 2009, 05:35 AM

What DON'T you like about Synaptic? :D

Synaptic is going whether you like it or not.

chris4585

June 20th, 2009, 08:31 PM

Chemical Imbalance

June 20th, 2009, 11:42 PM

Synaptic is going whether you like it or not.

I know it is. I don't understand why. It is perfect (to me at least).

Synaptic is feature-rich and robust.

What does Packagekit add? I personally can't stand what I've used of it.

chris4585

June 21st, 2009, 03:21 AM

i know it is. I don't understand why. It is perfect (to me at least).

Synaptic is feature-rich and robust.

What does packagekit add? I personally can't stand what i've used of it.

+1

Regenweald

June 21st, 2009, 05:38 AM

I've tried packagekit twice, it seemed like a blend of Update Manager and Add Remove. I especially like the fine grained check for updates option 'Every Hour' etc. But both times it crashed on me, obvioulsy because it's a work in progress, but there is nothing about it that i would say i can't live without. Gnome App Install will more than likely meet all my needs. Packagekit is great though.

Slug71

June 22nd, 2009, 04:01 PM

I don't like it because its dumbed down... Synaptic is just fine, its awesome actually... The idea of packagekit is awesome I think, only if they adopted the GUI of synaptic then I'd be fine. I don't like packagekit the same reason I don't like gnome-app-install, just too simple.

I know it is. I don't understand why. It is perfect (to me at least).

Synaptic is feature-rich and robust.

What does Packagekit add? I personally can't stand what I've used of it.

Its being replaced by AppCenter, not Packagekit.

I would personally prefer to just stick with Synaptic in that case. The point of moving to Packagekit is for more standardization. Why Ubuntu have decided to go alone at something and do it from the ground up is just ridiculous to me. Just another way to screw upstream.

Screwdriver0815

June 22nd, 2009, 04:18 PM

so when some of you say "Synaptic is going"... does this mean that Synaptic will be replaced by Packagekit in Karmic Koala?

I personally don't like Packagekit at all. I almost could say that I hate it.

Reason: I used it in Fedora 9 and 10 and when it did not crash it did not find packages on searches, it always annoys me with this "waiting for other tasks to complete" - and this takes ages... and so on.
In Kubuntu there is KPackagekit - either crashing all the time or no resolving of dependencies... but it at least finds packages when I search for them.

Luckily in Fedora there is yum and in Kubuntu apt-get for the commandline. Without these two, it would not be fun working and installing stuff in both OS.

short: Synaptic is the best package manager frontend under the sun!

these are my 0,02€

Chemical Imbalance

June 22nd, 2009, 10:08 PM

short: Synaptic is the best package manager frontend under the sun!

these are my 0,02€

Jawohl! +1

SunnyRabbiera

June 22nd, 2009, 10:18 PM

Its being replaced by AppCenter, not Packagekit.

I would personally prefer to just stick with Synaptic in that case. The point of moving to Packagekit is for more standardization. Why Ubuntu have decided to go alone at something and do it from the ground up is just ridiculous to me. Just another way to screw upstream.

They should hold off on Appcenter, keep synaptic for a while longer until Ubuntu 10.10 or 11.04 so we dont wind up with something broken in functionality...
Like bloody adept was.

Chemical Imbalance

June 22nd, 2009, 10:22 PM

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppCenter

What a waste of resources. Dump packagekit and keep Synaptic.

Its being replaced by AppCenter, not Packagekit.

Packagekit is probably going to be the backend for AppCenter.

Honestly, packagekit sucks.

SunnyRabbiera

June 22nd, 2009, 10:24 PM

Chemical Imbalance

June 22nd, 2009, 10:28 PM

Well the concept is sound but rather if it will be good in practice is another story.

But I can do everything they mention with Synaptic.

I can't understand why they think Synaptic is some overly-complex interface.

It's not.

SunnyRabbiera

June 22nd, 2009, 10:33 PM

But I can do everything they mention with Synaptic.

I can't understand why they think Synaptic is some overly-complex interface.

It's not.

Indeed, synaptic is a great app...
very easy, its what got me into linux.

Twitch6000

June 22nd, 2009, 10:34 PM

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppCenter

What a waste of resources. Dump packagekit and keep Synaptic.

Packagekit is probably going to be the backend for AppCenter.

Honestly, packagekit sucks.

Okay thats it I am tired of this crap...

You keep saying packagekit sucks because of this or that...

Well I do not see any other damn tool trying to become a universal api for linux..]

Not to freaking mention packagekit is very easy to use..

Oh last.but not least it is compatible with every distro,but gentoo and that will be fixed this summer by googles summer of code.

Here maybe read these links it might make you understand why packagekit is so good and useful.

http://www.packagekit.org/pk-intro.html
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code_2009_ideas
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html

There you go.

Chemical Imbalance

June 22nd, 2009, 10:38 PM

starcraft.man

June 22nd, 2009, 10:49 PM

Okay thats it I am tired of this crap...

You keep saying packagekit sucks because of this or that...

Well I do not see any other damn tool trying to become a universal api for linux..]

Not to freaking mention packagekit is very easy to use..

Oh last.but not least it is compatible with every distro,but gentoo and that will be fixed this summer by googles summer of code.

Here maybe read these links it might make you understand why packagekit is so good and useful.

http://www.packagekit.org/pk-intro.html
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code_2009_ideas
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html

There you go.
First and foremost, please consult a grammar book on proper use of ellipsis points. Then take 5 and calm down.

If it's aiming to be a universal installer for all Linux distros, then it's already doomed to fail. The defining attribute of linux is chaos, it's not going away because of lofty dreams and ideals.

The problem Linux has with getting mainstream is not frontend or backend, it is user familiarity (people feel comfortable with Windows) and what happens if it breaks. Packagekit from what I see, addresses neither. Linux is and will always be a drastically foreign environment for Win users and when it breaks (and it does for almost everyone at one time) support isn't as easy as windows (grab closest family geek or friend).

/endrant

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:30 AM

They should hold off on Appcenter, keep synaptic for a while longer until Ubuntu 10.10 or 11.04 so we dont wind up with something broken in functionality...
Like bloody adept was.

Agreed, and for the fact that we have an LTS around the corner which shouldnt have a half @$$ed packagemanager.

I would much rather just keep Synaptic over AppCenter.

Okay thats it I am tired of this crap...

You keep saying packagekit sucks because of this or that...

Well I do not see any other damn tool trying to become a universal api for linux..]

Not to freaking mention packagekit is very easy to use..

Oh last.but not least it is compatible with every distro,but gentoo and that will be fixed this summer by googles summer of code.

Here maybe read these links it might make you understand why packagekit is so good and useful.

http://www.packagekit.org/pk-intro.html
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code_2009_ideas
http://www.packagekit.org/pk-faq.html

There you go.

Agreed.

I love how so many people complain about Packagekit which has pretty much just come out of development and is still in very early days. Lots could still change. It already works much better than it did a year ago. Even 6 months ago.

Skripka

June 23rd, 2009, 04:36 AM

It already works much better than it did a year ago. Even 6 months ago.

I hope it does.

4 months ago when I last used it, it was gawd-awful...and somehow managed to divide by zero and be worse than even the new Adept was.

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:38 AM

If it's aiming to be a universal installer for all Linux distros, then it's already doomed to fail. The defining attribute of linux is chaos, it's not going away because of lofty dreams and ideals.

I dont Understand how its already doomed to fail.

Its already default in Fedora, Foresight, Moblin, Kubuntu and openSUSE and im probably missing a few more, specially some of the smaller Distros.
Its also likely to be adopted by Mandriva. I'd say had/if Ubuntu jump on board it will pretty much seal the deal to becoming a universal installer.

Then we will just need to find a backend everyone can use and my guess is that it will be Smart package manager.

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:41 AM

I hope it does.

4 months ago when I last used it, it was gawd-awful...and somehow managed to divide by zero and be worse than even the new Adept was.

I last used 0.4.6 in Foresight and it worked really well. I'm guessing 0.4.8 is even better. Not sure if Ubuntu's repos have been updated yet but 4 months ago Ubuntu had 0.3.14 if im not mistaken which was ok for me.

Skripka

June 23rd, 2009, 04:44 AM

I last used 0.4.6 in Foresight and it worked really well. I'm guessing 0.4.8 is even better. Not sure if Ubuntu's repos have been updated yet but 4 months ago Ubuntu had 0.3.14 if im not mistaken which was ok for me.

KPackageKit in Ibex as of February couldn't even find system packages that were part of the base install-that is how bad it was....Even Adept did a better job, as mind-boggling a concept as that is to type.

Even then it was slow and a pain-and Synaptic is and was a better tool to start with on Debian linuxes.

I'd take Pacman over any of these tools anyway. Y'all can keep your PackageKit.

hanzomon4

June 23rd, 2009, 04:48 AM

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:51 AM

KPackageKit in Ibex as of February couldn't even find system packages that were part of the base install-that is how bad it was....Even Adept did a better job, as mind-boggling a concept as that is to type.

Even then it was slow and a pain-and Synaptic is and was a better tool to start with on Debian linuxes.

I'd take Pacman over any of these tools anyway. Y'all can keep your PackageKit.

Havent tried it with Ibex but it seems to be ok with Jaunty. Still room for improvement but i think it will rock Karmic Kubuntu.

Synaptic is good though. I like it. Would much rather see it stay over AppCenter.

Skripka

June 23rd, 2009, 04:55 AM

Then we will just need to find a backend everyone can use

This will never happen.

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:56 AM

I can see why Ubuntu needs something like App center.. 5 ways to install debs in Ubuntu 3 are gui. I hate when gdebi or update-manager complains because I left synaptic open. Why do we need all of these interfaces if I can only use one at a time anyway?

You dont have that problem with Packagekit though and i see more sense in Packagekit for standardization. Packagekit might come up with something similiar to AppCenter too, who knows?

And since its already around it should be easier to prep for the next LTS than something which only now exists on paper.

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM

This will never happen.

I dunno, i think it might just be Smart.

Canonical is funding the project and the devs for it are guys from Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora.

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 04:59 AM

Smart:

•Conectiva Inc. - Funded the creation of Smart, and its development up to August of 2005.
•Canonical Ltd. - Is funding Smart development since September of 2005.
•Wanderlei Cavassin - Conectiva's research & development coordinator, who belived the project was viable and encouraged the author to work on it.
•Ednilson Miura & Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski - Conectiva employees, helped setting up many distributions for tests whenever necessary.
•Andreas Hasenack - Conectiva employee, helped as being the first brave pre-alpha tester, and contributed with many ideas, discussions, etc.
•Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo - Conectiva board member, helped with the "channel of mirrors" idea and by encouraging the author to build a generic channel.
•Others @ Conectiva - Many other people in Conectiva helped with ideas and alpha-testing in general during the pre-release period of Smart development.
•Guilerme Manika & Ruda Moura - Ancient Conectiva employees, now board members of the Haxent company, helped by testing Smart extensively in Fedora, reporting many bugs and suggesting changes. Also the original authors of the FAQ.
•APT-RPM & Debian - Experience on packaging and ideas for a better framework were developed while the author of Smart worked as the APT-RPM maintainer.
•Jeff Johnson - Contributed as being the RPM maintainer itself, and in many discussions regarding packaging theory in general.
•Seth Vidal - YUM author, and member of the Duke University, contributed to Smart with the development of the XML MetaData repository format and discussions about it.
•Michael Vogt - Currently the maintainer of the Synaptic, used to co-maintain it with the author of Smart. Many of his ideas ended up being adopted in Smart as a consequence.
•Sebastian Heinlein - Author of the package icons for Synaptic, that were mercilessly stolen to be used in Smart's graphic interface.
•TaQ/PiterPunk at #slackware-br - These guys helped Smart development by explaining details of Slackware practices regarding packaging.
•Matt Zimmerman - Debian/Ubuntu developer and co-maintainer of the APT software, helped by shining some light regarding details of the DPKG pre-depends ordering expectations.
•Mauricio Teixeira - FAQ maintenance, YaST2 channel maintainer, "tracker cleaner" ;), general suggestions and code contributions.
•Jonathan Rocker - Documentation help.

There is already a Packagekit backend for it. Its in the repos.

Therion

June 23rd, 2009, 05:01 AM

Then we will just have to find a backend everyone can use.

This will never happen.
Call my ex-wife... Problem solved.

Skripka

June 23rd, 2009, 05:05 AM

I dunno, i think it might just be Smart.

Canonical is funding the project and the devs for it are guys from Ubuntu, Mandriva, Fedora.

People have never been able to agree on on package format or backend, and I don't see why they would now. Linux is fundamentally chaotic in its development model, and a move towards a monolithic package format and backend is about as likely to happen as the Lions winning the Superbowl.

What would be smart? Heck for starters, if Ubuntu wants to optimize and make things better-they should start by welcoming 1993 and optimizing for only Pentium and above. Heck-Ubuntu will not even install onto an 80386 PC, WTH do they compile package against it is beyond me.

Skripka

June 23rd, 2009, 05:07 AM

Call my ex-wife... Problem solved.

This post is a PERFECT demonstration

[img]http://www.eyje.com/images/emimages/jun2008/criteria_for_the_proper_tactical_usage_of_phrase.j pg

Chemical Imbalance

June 23rd, 2009, 05:22 AM

:lolflag:

Therion

June 23rd, 2009, 05:38 AM

I am awaiting notification of my infraction...

Oh, and nothing like a good flowchart, by the way!

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 02:12 PM

Call my ex-wife... Problem solved.

:lolflag::lolflag:

Slug71

June 23rd, 2009, 02:14 PM

People have never been able to agree on on package format or backend, and I don't see why they would now. Linux is fundamentally chaotic in its development model, and a move towards a monolithic package format and backend is about as likely to happen as the Lions winning the Superbowl.

What would be smart? Heck for starters, if Ubuntu wants to optimize and make things better-they should start by welcoming 1993 and optimizing for only Pentium and above. Heck-Ubuntu will not even install onto an 80386 PC, WTH do they compile package against it is beyond me.

Smart only replaces APT, apt-rpm, RPM, URPMI etc..., not .deb or .rpm or anything.

Twitch6000

June 29th, 2009, 08:27 PM

Smart only replaces APT, apt-rpm, RPM, URPMI etc..., not .deb or .rpm or anything.

Correct and if I am right this could help making packages for Linux alot easier on the big companies like adobe.

Skripka

June 29th, 2009, 08:29 PM

Correct and if I am right this could help making packages for Linux alot easier on the big companies like adobe.

Pffffffffft. Like Adobe will make anything for Linux other than Adobe Reader or Flash plugins anyway.

A universal package format isn't what keeps companies from making linux packages. It is the fact that linux users are roughly 1% of the market. "Why bother?" they ask. 'Sides most of us keep a Windows install handy anyway.

mcduck

June 29th, 2009, 08:45 PM

What would be smart? Heck for starters, if Ubuntu wants to optimize and make things better-they should start by welcoming 1993 and optimizing for only Pentium and above. Heck-Ubuntu will not even install onto an 80386 PC, WTH do they compile package against it is beyond me.
That's what they are already. Actually if I remember right the current optimizations are for P2 and above, also detecting CPU-specific stuff and enabling it on-the-fly at boot time so you are definitely not loosing any feature of your modern CPU. :D

Don't let the x86/386 in package names fool you. It's just there to tell the package is for x86-compatible systems, and to make difference between 32- and 64-bit versions.

Skripka

June 29th, 2009, 08:50 PM

That's what they are already. Actually if I remember right the current optimizations are for P2 and above, also detecting CPU-specific stuff and enabling it on-the-fly at boot time so you are definitely not loosing any feature of your modern CPU. :D

Don't let the x86/386 in package names fool you. It's just there to tell the package is for x86-compatible systems, and to make difference between 32- and 64-bit versions.

I could be reading wrong... Ubuntu's own documentation says is will run (barely) on i486 with CLi only.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements