On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 08:22:48AM +0100, Daniel Mach wrote:
Dne 12. 03. 20 v 6:21 Chris Murphy napsal(a):
>On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 8:30 AM Daniel Mach <dmach(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>Dne 04. 03. 20 v 23:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>>>On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:37 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>>>>Are you going to use sd-bus for the dbus library?
>>>I'd hope not, given that we have cross-distro usage of DNF now, and a
>>>couple of them don't have systemd.
>>Do you know which distros do not have systemd?
>>We have evaluated sd-bus to be the best dbus client available, but we
>>may have underestimated it's adoption.
>>Couldn't systemd team split it into a separate library independent on
>>the rest of the systemd eco-system? :)
>Is varlink applicable here? I mention it because I've come across it
>being used by systemd-homed. It's intended to be available during
We have considered both dbus and varlink and decided to use dbus.
Dbus has better adoption and we'll be replacing a dbus service
(PackageKit) with another.
varlink is useful for cases where dbus is not available — early boot,
or as part of the supporting infra for the dbus broker daemon itself.
dbus is the preferred solution for the case where we want to expose a
service to many client, have unprivileged clients communicating with a
system daemon, and possibly do privilege escalation using polkit.
dbus seems very much to be the right choice for dnf.