PackageKit Misconceptions

Richard Hughes hughsient at
Thu Aug 23 01:23:36 UTC 2007

On 23/08/07, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at> wrote:
> On 8/22/07, Owen Taylor <otaylor at> wrote:
> > I'm sure we can work with legal to come up with something acceptable.
> I hope so. I just want to make sure you guys don't go crazy on
> implementation mock-ups just to get your bubbles bursted by the
> non-technical constraints.

Ohh, it's entirely doable in the current PackageKit design, it's just
an argument on whether it's a good idea to do so or not.

What I'm currently thinking is:

User installs livna/internal/freshrpms repo rpm
User types in mplayer into application finder
User clicks install

PackageKit gets the GPG key message, and returns an error enum
gpg-key-required and the description of the repo as the technical
data. The install "fails" and a dialog is presented to the user.

Then, as a seporate task the user can click on the button in the
failure GUI and the GPG key can be imported (using PolicyKit as
auth?). Then the install can be retried and should succeed.

Sounds insane to me, but allows us to keep (and further improve) the
GPG repo signed issue if we want to, or have to, keep it.


More information about the desktop mailing list