[devel] [PATCH for apt] Implemented generic callback system for package manager transactions
Oleg Solovyov
mcpain на altlinux.org
Вт Дек 10 10:27:54 MSK 2019
On вторник, 10 декабря 2019 г. 03:30:42 MSK Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:12:01PM +0300, Oleg Solovyov wrote:
> > ---
> >
> > apt/apt-pkg/packagemanager.cc | 4 +-
> > apt/apt-pkg/packagemanager.h | 30 +++++++-
> > apt/apt-pkg/rpm/rpmpm.cc | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > apt/apt-pkg/rpm/rpmpm.h | 16 ++--
> > 4 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> I agree the code should speak for itself, but it would be great
> if you could shed some light on what's going on.
We're introducing custom callback for higher layers (like packagekit), letting
them pass their own callbacks to APT instead of using rpmShowProgress when
it's necessary.
It's useful in particular case of offline updating when packagekit can send
messages to plymouth letting user know about transaction progress but because
APT does not send anything since it's using rpmShowProgress, packagekit
reports nothing because it's just nothing to report.
> > [...]
>
> This looks ugly. Could we use the same values for corresponding
> APTCALLBACK_* and RPMCALLBACK_* constants instead?
They're passed to packagekit.
I don't think it's a good idea to let packagekit know something about RPM
internals.
Better introduce something similar in APT than include RPM headers in
packagekit (which is two layers above RPM) I think.
----------- следующая часть -----------
Было удалено вложение не в текстовом формате...
Имя : signature.asc
Тип : application/pgp-signature
Размер : 833 байтов
Описание: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : <http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20191210/2d55db38/attachment.bin>
Подробная информация о списке рассылки Devel