-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin Olsson wrote on 02/04/09 10:42: > > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: >> >> We have not made any decisions about whether this program would be >> based on PackageKit, Add/Remove Applications, Synaptic, or something >> else, or written from scratch. We should first design what it will do >> and how it will behave, then work out how to implement it. > > As you now doubt have heard numerous times already, if we could ever > get to a consistent interface between RPM / DEB based distros that > would be a gigantic win for Linux overall. For some extent I therefore > think Canonical should have at least a small packagekit bias, should > all the available options be _roughly_ equivalent.
It's not a matter of Canonical (or anyone else) having a "bias". It's a matter of measuring benefits against costs. For example, if PackageKit makes it easier for third-party applications to request the installation of software components on the fly, that would be a benefit. Conversely, if PackageKit unavoidably makes progress feedback worse, or makes change queueing less practical to implement, that's a cost. >... > The "new updates available" screen doesn't tell the user which ones > are critical/security updates. >... > Popularity stats should not be skewed by "default installs" so I don't > think it should be based straight on popcon (maybe it should be > weighted against some list of default installed apps or something). >... Added to the wiki page, thanks. > I think the terms "Ubuntu Software" and "Partner Software" is a bit > unclear. It sounds like the partner software is not Ubuntu software? I > guess you are referring to Canonical Maintained apps but I don't have > a better name for it. It's referring to Canonical's Partner repository. <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu#Adding%20Canonical%20Partner%20Repositories> > Why is "Fonts" it's own top-level item next to "Ubuntu Software"? Because presenting fonts as software packages makes little sense. (I understand that argument could be made for other types of data too.) > I see that the "Description" field for each update is working properly > in your mockup. I really hope that you will list that as a explicitly > feature and make sure it "just works". >... Added to the wiki page. Thanks - -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknZxsIACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecqvEACghPI4a/KUGbkAzYUXDfEJl5Oh WPoAn1sgqNtCwFoFzR/MmTVAkeg0jq9p =y0HI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
