On вторник, 10 декабря 2019 г. 03:30:42 MSK Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:12:01PM +0300, Oleg Solovyov wrote:
> > ---
> > 
> >  apt/apt-pkg/packagemanager.cc |   4 +-
> >  apt/apt-pkg/packagemanager.h  |  30 +++++++-
> >  apt/apt-pkg/rpm/rpmpm.cc      | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  apt/apt-pkg/rpm/rpmpm.h       |  16 ++--
> >  4 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> I agree the code should speak for itself, but it would be great
> if you could shed some light on what's going on.
We're introducing custom callback for higher layers (like packagekit), letting 
them pass their own callbacks to APT instead of using rpmShowProgress when 
it's necessary.
It's useful in particular case of offline updating when packagekit can send 
messages to plymouth letting user know about transaction progress but because 
APT does not send anything since it's using rpmShowProgress, packagekit 
reports nothing because it's just nothing to report.

> > [...]
> 
> This looks ugly.  Could we use the same values for corresponding
> APTCALLBACK_* and RPMCALLBACK_* constants instead?
They're passed to packagekit.
I don't think it's a good idea to let packagekit know something about RPM 
internals.
Better introduce something similar in APT than include RPM headers in 
packagekit (which is two layers above RPM) I think.