Removal of KPackage from the KDEAdmin module

[Dario Freddi]

Shaman and KPackageKit are two different tools for two different use cases,
and I possibly see distributions either pick up one or another depending on
what they want to provide. KPackageKit is completely focused on PackageKit
and its philosophy, whereas Shaman has a broader approach also embracing
other backends.

To the bottom: KPackageKit is not a replacement for Shaman and Shaman still
(but probably never will) does not support the tight PackageKit system
integration that KPackageKit does. I see Shaman and KPackageKit sharing some
stuff (icons mostly, I still did not manage to catch up with Daniel these
days), but not much else.

I would have worked on PackageKit only, but talking bluntly PackageKit has
not (yet, and probably will never do since most of them are design
decisions) the potential and the flexibility to be the tool that unites them
all, and its not really wide adoption serves in demonstrating this. In my
view, Shaman has the potential to be a single interface for any packaging
tool (just compare the backend API to packagekit's one and see yourself
why). Yet, if I were lucky enough to have PackageKit working _for real_ on
my system, I'd keep an eye closer on KPackageKit.

And, the two interfaces and workflows are extremely different.

2009/12/11 John Tapsell <johnflux at gmail.com>

> 2009/12/11  <dantti85-dev at yahoo.com.br>:
> > Yup, KPackageKit is almost ready for a review to get in KDE 4.5
> > as my kids have just born I hope I still have time to do my last changes,
> > I'm planning on big revamp on the UI and then start writing the docs
> > (since the UI is changing a bit and writing docs about unstable UI is not
> > cool).
>
> Please work with Dario and try to come up with one solution :-/
>
> John
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20091211/6f3f7508/attachment.htm>