Gnome software

bokal · 2013-09-23 11:40:23

Hi,

There will be gnome-software included in the next release of Gnome (3.10).
See http://worldofgnome.org/gnome-upcoming-features/ if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Will it work in Arch?
Yet it seems it'll be only available in Fedora 20.

drcouzelis · 2013-09-23 14:21:58

If it's "Linux software" then it will be available for Arch Linux.

For example, Arch Linux was one of the first distributions to get Steam back when it was "only available" for Ubuntu.

mar04 · 2013-09-23 16:59:24

Here it says:

gnome-software will be available as a preview in 3.10. It can install, remove applications on systems with PackageKit. It can install updates on systemd-based systems.

so it should work in Arch, if it gets packaged - packagekit and gnome-packagekit are in [community] and not maintained by the same maintainers as the rest of Gnome in Arch.

bokal · 2013-09-24 08:47:10

mar04 wrote:

Here it says:
gnome-software will be available as a preview in 3.10. It can install, remove applications on systems with PackageKit. It can install updates on systemd-based systems.
so it should work in Arch, if it gets packaged - packagekit and gnome-packagekit are in [community] and not maintained by the same maintainers as the rest of Gnome in Arch.

Thanks!

sigo · 2013-10-08 18:06:45

If you want, we can try to create a packagebuild in aur. And if all dependancy are available for arch we will have this greate software.

It's my first true pkgbuild so help is welcome.

I will post in this topic my progress.

Smoerrebroed · 2013-10-08 18:24:44

Actually, it *is* already available as of yesterday - and it's causing lots of dissatisfied users. :-/

iskandr · 2013-10-08 19:05:23

Smoerrebroed wrote:

Actually, it *is* already available as of yesterday - and it's causing lots of dissatisfied users. :-/

Really? What is the name of the package?
I haven't found it so far...

sigo · 2013-10-08 19:23:57

first problem, gnome-software need packagekit>=0.8.10 but in archlinux we have just 0.7.6. So first we want to update this pkgbuild. And a good think is to push our modification upstream for the pacman backend.

This is realy more complicated than just create a packet.

To be continued...

XURL · 2013-10-08 19:29:37

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=130138

6. When will $package be in the repos?
When it is ready.

Rasi · 2013-12-27 23:49:53

oh dear... they come to infect us!

Last edited by Rasi (2013-12-27 23:51:40)

lmello · 2014-03-26 22:30:16

The new stable gnome-software version also implements a key feature in GNOME: it is not only a GUI to install/remove software, but also can manage applications in AppFolders (finally!) - so it would be nice to see a working version of gnome-software in Arch.

ps: I hope that 3 months isn't 'necroposting'

brittyazel · 2014-03-26 23:55:19

I couldn't agree more. The difference in package kit version dependency could be eliminated by just hosting both the new and old packagekit packages under different name delineations correct? I would hate to miss out on gnome software due to a version conflict

phw · 2014-03-27 08:27:04

brittyazel wrote:

I couldn't agree more. The difference in package kit version dependency could be eliminated by just hosting both the new and old packagekit packages under different name delineations correct? I would hate to miss out on gnome software due to a version conflict

It's more than just a version conflict. In order for packagekit to work with any package management system support for this system must be added to packagekit. The current Arch packagekit package includes a patch to support pacman, but this patch would need to be ported to the latest packagekit version.

So far nobody has done that and it does not seem to be a simple task.

brittyazel · 2014-03-27 18:33:06

I wish I knew more about pacman (ALPM) and packagekit to do it myself. We are running a 'fairly' ancient version of packagekit in the repo's (0.7.4) when version (0.9.1) is the current release. They also have documentation on their website in how to write backends, and it doesn't seem too terribly complicated, though I do not quite understand how to do it myself unfortunately.

beanaroo · 2014-03-27 22:14:09

Correct me if I'm wrong but won't this require Arch repositories to ship extra metadata and things like screenshots with packages?

brittyazel · 2014-03-27 23:16:56

Yes, it would follow the guidelines set forth here:

http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/

Which is not an easy task in any respect, but it isn't necessarily one that couldn't be beneficial to do regardless.

App-stores are the current trend, and I don't forsee that changing any time soon

blackout23 · 2014-03-27 23:22:32

brittyazel wrote:

Yes, it would follow the guidelines set forth here:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/
Which is not an easy task in any respect, but it isn't necessarily one that couldn't be beneficial to do regardless.
App-stores are the current trend, and I don't forsee that changing any time soon

Yes but it isn't that relevant since Arch is not a consumer distro.

Last edited by blackout23 (2014-03-27 23:45:33)

Steef435 · 2014-03-28 00:07:42

I guess you could create a package containing lots of those appdata files for apps and put it in the AUR. Or am I misunderstanding something? I don't think Arch will be shipping that kind of metadata by default. Perhaps it could be made even fancier and let them get downloaded on the fly using a plugin for packagekit.
Most of them could be taken from other distros or the software developer methinks. At least it wouldn't require much skill or knowledge, just a lot of time. And then there has to be written a new plugin for libalpm which I guess would be a pain.

I suppose it all comes down to it costing time. And I don't think a lot of people here on Arch prefer using a packagekit front-end instead of pacman.

Last edited by Steef435 (2014-03-28 00:08:11)

brittyazel · 2014-03-28 01:20:58

Fair enough, regardless it would be nice to have a complete running Gnome desktop (gnome-software included), even without the extra metadata. At the very least I believe it could serve the purpose of a nicer and more integrated version of gnome-packagekit. I guess the one thing holding this back comes down to an updated ALPM backend for packagekit to work with the 0.8.x and 0.9.x branches. Which, regardless of the metadata or even Gnome for that matter, should ideally be done at one point or another so that we can update packagekit in our repos. If we are going to go to the effort of hosting packagkit, we should at least keep up with it.

I'm looking into collaborating with a buddy of mine to come up with a backend, though I don't foresee this going anywhere at least for a while. We both have to learn the interworkings of ALPM and Packagekit in order to write it. It would be nicer if someone with some more knowledge would hop on board

mrunion · 2014-03-28 13:09:50

I tend to agree with Steef435 that most Archers wouldn't use this sort of thing anyway. Why spend the extra time on it when it would be a total waste in the occasion one has to boot to a console to repair an issue (or any other myriad of reasons to use a term + pacman vs a GUI)? I know I prefer the plain pacman usage myself.

I'm not at all trying to get you NOT to do something like this, but I think you are targeting the minority of Arch users here, and the effort would be seen as just not being worth it to the more seasoned Arch Devs. YMMV.

Note: I would wonder if any of the Arch derivatives already have something like this created. It might be worth checking Manjaro and the like to see if they have already done this sort of work. They're not Arch, though -- but it might be a starting point for you.

brittyazel · 2014-04-02 05:21:24

A buddy of mine and I are working on modernizing the alpm backend to packagekit. I cannot give an eta on when it will be done (or if), but I will post a thread once I have something to put on the aur to test. Once packagekit gets working there should be no problem getting gnome-software up and running. The only issue then is getting some of the meta info working, and as I do not wish to completely redefine the way archlinux does it's packages, I will have to toy with packaging up as much meta data I can extract from fedora in one big package. (but thats a project for another day ;-) ) One step at a time.

sigo · 2014-04-06 17:31:47

@brittyazel Is there a way to help you to develop the updates of the ALPM backend ?

m20554443 · 2014-04-09 09:55:20

Richard Hughes, developer of gnome-software: "If anyone from Arch, Suse or any of the other major distributions want to get GNOME Software working there, please let me know in #PackageKit on freenode. Volunteers very much required. Thanks."

https://plus.google.com/+RichardHughes/ … cuo4wK58ZD

fbourigault · 2014-04-09 13:25:13

brittyazel wrote:

A buddy of mine and I are working on modernizing the alpm backend to packagekit. I cannot give an eta on when it will be done (or if), but I will post a thread once I have something to put on the aur to test. Once packagekit gets working there should be no problem getting gnome-software up and running. The only issue then is getting some of the meta info working, and as I do not wish to completely redefine the way archlinux does it's packages, I will have to toy with packaging up as much meta data I can extract from fedora in one big package. (but thats a project for another day ;-) ) One step at a time.

I'm also working on this. I started a new alpm backend from scratch because the older one is broken. You should join #PackageKit on freenode and talk to people there because there is a need of coordination to avoid the work to be done twice. I'm currently focusing on appsteam part of the job. The alpm backend is the other requirement and is totally broken since PkBackendJob have been introduced.

See you on #PackageKit

brittyazel · 2014-04-10 07:04:31

It doesn't look like I'll be able to get alpm backend working. The consensus is that it needs a full rewrite, as the current code base is almost entirely deprecated. It's fairly complex and I don't have the time with my Ph.D. program right now to learn everything I need to about alpm and packagekit to get it to work. I'm more than happy to package/test any work anyone else does, or take on some minor coding, but the whole rewrite is something that I can't do. However, it looks like @fbourigault is going to be doing a lot of work, so @sigo you may want to coordinate with him via #PackageKit on freenode. I'll keep working with you guys as well to try to get this going.

Now, even when the alpm backend is done and we can get gnome-software working, we still need to figure out a way to get the meta-info into the app. So far the best solution I've heard is to try to extract as much as we can from other distro's packages, and package them into an install-able package. Though this does have the downsides of being hugely time consuming to write, and a nightmare to keep up to date.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-09-23 11:40:23

Gnome software

#2 2013-09-23 14:21:58

Re: Gnome software

#3 2013-09-23 16:59:24

Re: Gnome software

#4 2013-09-24 08:47:10

Re: Gnome software

#5 2013-10-08 18:06:45

Re: Gnome software

#6 2013-10-08 18:24:44

Re: Gnome software

#7 2013-10-08 19:05:23

Re: Gnome software

#8 2013-10-08 19:23:57

Re: Gnome software

#9 2013-10-08 19:29:37

Re: Gnome software

6. When will $package be in the repos?

#10 2013-12-27 23:49:53

Re: Gnome software

#11 2014-03-26 22:30:16

Re: Gnome software

#12 2014-03-26 23:55:19

Re: Gnome software

#13 2014-03-27 08:27:04

Re: Gnome software

#14 2014-03-27 18:33:06

Re: Gnome software

#15 2014-03-27 22:14:09

Re: Gnome software

#16 2014-03-27 23:16:56

Re: Gnome software

#17 2014-03-27 23:22:32

Re: Gnome software

#18 2014-03-28 00:07:42

Re: Gnome software

#19 2014-03-28 01:20:58

Re: Gnome software

#20 2014-03-28 13:09:50

Re: Gnome software

#21 2014-04-02 05:21:24

Re: Gnome software

#22 2014-04-06 17:31:47

Re: Gnome software

#23 2014-04-09 09:55:20

Re: Gnome software

#24 2014-04-09 13:25:13

Re: Gnome software

#25 2014-04-10 07:04:31

Re: Gnome software

Board footer