PackageKit-0.4.8-2.fc11.i586 requires preupgrade-1.1.0-1.fc11.noarch which requires createrepo-0.9.7-7.fc11.noarch which requires deltarpm-3.4-16.fc11.i586 IMHO that dependency chain is unfortunate. It introduces hard-core packages on enduser systems. And even though preupgrade integration is very nice it isn't something everybody wants. Especially not for applicances and livecds. I suggest that PackageKit just uses preupgrade if it is available without requiring it, or that a PackageKit-preupgrade package is introduced.
PackageKit uses the /usr/share/preupgrade/releases.list file to check for updates. If we remove the preupgrade dep, then we are unable to check for distro upgrades. I suggest you split preupgrade into preupgrade and preupgrade-data (just containing /usr/share/preupgrade/releases.list), and then patch PackageKit to only depend on preupgrade-data.
Richard: In some cases PackageKits functionality for installing new applications and security updates is nice, but distro upgrades are not desirable. In that case not being able to check for distro upgrades is nice. So just checking for /usr/share/preupgrade/releases.list would be just fine. I don't see what would be achieved by splitting preupgrade the way you describe. What should PackageKit do with the release list if preupgrade isn't available? Install it on demand? Ok, I guess that would work and save some disk space. But in my case I would actually rather disable preupgrade completely.
I think removing the preupgrade dep is a big loss in functionality to save 700kb in space...
My (not so clearly made) point is that in some use cases we actually don't want the preupgrade functionality. Loosing functionality is the goal, and not including unnecessary packages and saving some space is secondary. For example on the official Fedora 11 live CD where being able to install extra applications through PackageKit is nice, but prompting the user and running preupgrade makes no sense. (Another case: I installed Fedora on a friends computer. I showed him how to install updates and new applications with PackageKit. That works just fine and he is happy and prefers that to Vista. But one day he called and had some problems because of "some big update". Investigation showed that he had allowed preupgrade to run. Preupgrade worked just fine and was apparently very easy to use, but a version upgrade is a major thing so I would have preferred that the he hadn't been prompted about it. An obvious and simple solution to that would have been to install PackageKit but not preupgrade.)
Comments Richard? -- Steven M. Parrish - KDE Triage Master - PackageKit Triager Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
I had another bugzilla from RHEL, where they didn't want preupgrade either. I've added the code to just ignore with no upgrades if the preupgrade package data doesn't exist, so I guess it's sane to make this optional in fedora too. I do think it's important to include preupgrade by default, but it should probably be pulled in by comps or kickstart, rather than be required by PackageKit.
*** Bug 510888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
PackageKit-0.5.6-1.fc12.i686 still requires preupgrade. Changing to F12.
- Remove preupgrade hard depends as it's not installed by default for gnome-desktop in comps.