On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Scarlett Clark <scarlett.gately.cl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I have moved it to a top priority on my KDE hat to-do list. > With my Kubuntu hat on I support AppStream+(PK|QApt) and will drum up any > testers needed and report back. > Cheers, > Scarlett > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Matthias Klumpp <matth...@tenstral.net> > wrote: >> >> 2015-11-10 17:45 GMT+01:00 Aleix Pol <aleix...@kde.org>: >> > [...] >> > >> > Feedback is very welcome. >> >> As AppStream upstream and PackageKit developer, I obviously approve >> this idea :-) >> The aptcc backend of PackageKit has a few shortcomings (like not being >> able to process read queries in parallel), due to missing >> multithreading support, but the APT team in Debian is working on >> fixing APT, and I am certain that the aptcc backend will get some help >> from Canonical - parallel-processing backends are a huge performance >> win, and Ubuntu will definitively want that for GNOME-Software. >> >> Adopting AppStream should be very painless, as long as the packagers >> fix their metadata (for KDE, Scarlett is adding some validator code to >> the CI, so we should be safe soon). >> So AppStream+(PK|QApt) should definitively be the way to go :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Matthias
Thanks, but note that the actual question is whether PackageKit is an acceptable replacement to QApt or I should make the effort to port the QApt backend to AppStream. Aleix -- kubuntu-devel mailing list kubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
