Dne 04. 03. 20 v 22:34 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 07:03:01PM +0100, Daniel Mach wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I'm pleased to announce start of DNF 5 development. We are planning
> to deliver a module stream or a COPR repo during Fedora 33
> development for early adopters and tool developers and we're hoping
> in getting a stable version into Fedora 34.
>
>
> More details follow.
>
>
> We've managed to drop a lot of redundant code across the whole DNF
> stack in the past years, but we have reached a point when it's
> nearly impossible to consolidate the code any further without
> breaking the API/ABI. Especially with PackageKit being dead[1], we
> can't move with the old "libhif" API in libdnf, because making any
> bigger changes to PackageKit is clearly out of scope.
>
> [1]
https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2019/02/14/packagekit-is-dead-long-live-w...
>
>
> That's why we decided to start working on a new version of the DNF
> stack: DNF 5. And this is the plan:
>
>
> Priorities
> ----------
> 1. Consistency, documentation and user experience is the top priority.
> 2. Compatibility on the command line level.
> 3. Compatibility on the API level.
>
>
> Maintenance
> -----------
> The existing DNF 4 stack stays in the current Fedoras and Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux 8. We'll keep maintaining it in dnf-4-master
> branches on GitHub. PackageKit and rpm-ostree will stay on libdnf
> from the DNF 4 stack.
>
>
> The existing Python API in DNF
> ------------------------------
> The Python API in DNF stays. We'll do our best to keep it working.
> If there is an incompatible change, we'll communicate and document
> it properly.
>
>
> The new API in libdnf
> ---------------------
> All business logic will move from DNF (Python) to libdnf (C++). This
> is the only way to ensure that package managers work identically
> across the whole distribution. We'll start with C++ API and
> auto-generated Python bindings via SWIG. We'll focus on the Python
> bindings which are required by DNF and we will do our best to
> provide bindings for Go, Perl5 and Ruby as well. C API will be
> created later when the C++ API is stable. At that moment rpm-ostree
> will be ported to the new C API.
>
>
> hawkey
> ------
> Hawkey Python API is going away and will be replaced with libdnf Python API.
>
>
> DNF
> ---
> DNF stays as the primary command-line package manager. The overall
> functionality remains. We don't anticipate any negative impact of
> the API rewrite on the end-users. We have built an extensive test
> suite (over 1400 scenarios) that will help us to ensure that. The
> argument parser and outputs may slightly change in some cases to
> provide a more consistent user-experience. All such cases will be
> properly documented.
>
>
> microdnf
> --------
> Microdnf is becoming important because it's part of many containers
> due to its small footprint. We're getting feedback that users would
> appreciate something closer to DNF. We'll focus on implementing a
> subset of DNF's functionality and improving the user experience.
> 100% feature parity with DNF is currently out of scope.
>
>
Hi,
the roadmap is ambitious, but not impossible. Good luck!
Thanks!
> Roadmap (tentative)
> -------------------
> * Mar 2020 - making the bigger API changes, upstream code barely compiles
> * May 2020 - COPR repo with first development snapshots
> * Jun 2020 - F33 module available for early adopters and tool developers
> * Oct 2020 - DNF 5 landing in F34 Rawhide
> * Feb 2021 - DNF 5 replacing DNF 4 in stable Fedora
> DBus service
> ------------
> DNF team has decided to create a new DBus service replacing
> PackageKit to provide an interface to GUI applications. It's
> probably going to take a while because we're planning to start from
> scratch.
Do you plan to make normal 'dnf' calls go through the dbus api?
(And e.g. provide a single cache and privilege escalation through
packagekit)?
No, dnf stays as it is, it's not going to switch to dbus.
Single cache is part of the plan.
Apart from the dbus api, do you plan to provide some graphical
application that uses this api?
Definitely not at this moment.
We need to build the new service and integrate it with the existing
tools first. We may create a simple command-line tool replacing pkcon,
something like microdnf over dbus.
Are you going to use sd-bus for the dbus library?
Yes, it's going to be sd-bus + sdbus-cpp:
*
https://github.com/Kistler-Group/sdbus-cpp
*
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdbus-cpp