Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:44:28 +0100 (BST)
From:      Matt Windsor <mbw500@york.ac.uk>
To:        soc-status@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        jmuniz@FreeBSD.org, eadler@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   GSoC status - Week 2
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1306301724190.1671@cavalier>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all,

Sorry for not being very active this week, it's been the last week of the 
year at York and as such a lot of my time got taken up by end-of-year 
activities and society business.

According to my milestone set, though, I'm still on track, but I imagine 
this is because the milestones are a bit too forgiving and not because 
I've done a large amount of work!

The main changes this week were adding GetFiles and GetRepoList, as well 
as porting the codebase from pkg1.0 to pkg1.1.

FEATURES

At the end of this week, my version of the backend has rudimentary support 
(against pkgng 1.1 and PackageKit 0.6.11) for GetDetails, GetFiles and 
GetRepoList, with the following caveats:

1) GetFiles only works for installed packages.  This is, as far as I know 
at the moment, a pkgng restriction.

2) GetRepoList currently emits the repo ident as its name, and the repo 
name as its description.  This may not be optimal behaviour, as the two 
are different only by the repo name having "repo-" prefixed to it.  I will 
ask around the pkgng community with regards to what would be best here.

3) Licence support is still deficient.  It currently only shows the first 
licence in the licence chain; future work will translate a full licence 
expression into a string for packagekit.  (Any suggestions of packages 
that have AND-ed and OR-ed licences would be much appreciated!)

PKG1.1

Porting to pkg1.1 went mostly smoothly (with the exception of problems on 
my end), with the main changes being to the repository system.  The only 
major code change was adding a permissions test for the package database.

NEXT WEEK

Next week I'm down to work on local package installation.  I think it 
might be more sensible to try implementing remote package installation 
first and see if both variants can be done in the same week, as local 
package installation I think might be more complex than I imagined it 
would be when I wrote the milestones (some dependencies may need to be 
installed remotely, for example).

In conclusion, apologies for the somewhat lighter workload this week, but 
the backend now targets pkg1.1 and has a few more features.  Hopefully 
I'll be more on form in the next few weeks as I return home and don't have 
as much uni winding-down to distract me!

~Matt



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1306301724190.1671>