5:55 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
One just noticed that `dnf autoremove` is trying to remove `fedora-
repos-modular` and `fedora-repos-rawhide-modular`.
tl;dr. fedora-repos-modular inherit installation reason from fedora-
repos (DEPENDENCY) and nothing depends on fedora-repos-modular so it is
not needed anymore (from the solver POV).
The fedora-repos is being pulled in by fedora-release-common (that is
brought by fedora-release-workstation or others). fedora-repos is not
part of the @core group in comps so its reason recorded in DNF DB is 1.
enum class TransactionItemReason : int {
UNKNOWN = 0,
DEPENDENCY = 1,
USER = 2,
CLEAN = 3, // hawkey compatibility
WEAK_DEPENDENCY = 4,
GROUP = 5
};
On my laptop:
❯ sqlite3 /var/lib/dnf/history.sqlite
sqlite> select trans_id,name,epoch,version,release,reason from
trans_item join rpm on rpm.item_id=trans_item.item_id where name like
'fedora-release%' or name like 'fedora-repos%';
1|fedora-release-common|0|33|0.8|1
1|fedora-release-identity-workstation|0|33|0.8|1
1|fedora-release-workstation|0|33|0.8|5
1|fedora-repos|0|33|0.6|1
1|fedora-repos-rawhide|0|33|0.6|1
21|fedora-release-common|0|33|0.9|1
21|fedora-release-common|0|33|0.8|1
21|fedora-release-identity-workstation|0|33|0.9|1
21|fedora-release-identity-workstation|0|33|0.8|1
21|fedora-release-workstation|0|33|0.9|5
21|fedora-release-workstation|0|33|0.8|5
143|fedora-repos-modular|0|33|0.8|1
143|fedora-repos-rawhide-modular|0|33|0.8|1
143|fedora-repos|0|33|0.8|1
143|fedora-repos|0|33|0.6|1
143|fedora-repos-rawhide|0|33|0.8|1
143|fedora-repos-rawhide|0|33|0.6|1
The packages that have been brought by the obsoletes inherit reason
(DEPENDENCY in this case) and since nothing depends on those they are
automatically cleaned up on the autoremove.
I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or both.
Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
So sending this email just in case somebody will see this interesting
behavior.
- --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=UXSc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:24 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
One just noticed that `dnf autoremove` is trying to remove `fedora-
repos-modular` and `fedora-repos-rawhide-modular`.
[...]
I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or
both.
Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action
on
a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on the system.
However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for doing it. (Except
of injecting that command into some externally executed script.)
-- Petr
9:35 a.m.
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 3:55:44 AM MST Igor Raits wrote:
I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or
both.
Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
What's to fix? Sounds like a feature, not a bug. It's well reasoned above,
nothing depends on it.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
9:36 a.m.
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action on
a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on the
system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for doing
it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
script.)
Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually installed
it, and opted into modularity, right?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
9:39 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 10:36 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action
on
> a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on the
> system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for doing
> it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> script.)
Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually installed
it, and opted into modularity, right?
The agreement by FESCo was to have it as an optional component, but installed by default,
IIUC. It should be added to the relevant comps groups, but I think 'yum upgrade'
needs to also learn about upgrading groups.
(Side note, this is another example of where the 'yumdb' command would come in
handy if there were a dnf equivalent; I wouldn't have been able to do those sqlite
queries myself.)
V/r,
James Cassell
9:45 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
> action on
> a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
> the
> system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
> doing
> it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> script.)
Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
installed
it, and opted into modularity, right?
No, it should be installed by default.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
- --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=oXCM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:06 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:35 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 3:55:44 AM MST Igor Raits wrote:
> I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or both.
> Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since
> DNF
> is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
What's to fix? Sounds like a feature, not a bug. It's well reasoned
above,
nothing depends on it.
While it is behaving as it technically should, this is unexpected for
the users. That's the only reason why I brought it here.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
- --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=j6pN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:40 a.m.
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:45:07 AM MST Igor Raits wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
> installed
> it, and opted into modularity, right?
No, it should be installed by default.
What was the point of breaking it out into a separate package, if it's still
going to be installed on end users' systems by default? I can obviously see it
being removed on systems currently using modular repos as an issue, but I'm
not sure it makes sense to throw it on for systems not currently using it.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
10:47 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:40:52AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:45:07 AM MST Igor Raits wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
> > installed
> > it, and opted into modularity, right?
>
>
> No, it should be installed by default.
What was the point of breaking it out into a separate package, if it's still
going to be installed on end users' systems by default?
The goal is to have continuity in behaviour and avoid surprises for
users. Existing systems behave as before, new installations get the
full set of packages available, but users who wish to may opt out.
This is also what got approved by FESCo.
I can obviously see it
being removed on systems currently using modular repos as an issue, but I'm
not sure it makes sense to throw it on for systems not currently using it.
It is being removed without taking into account if the user has any
modular packages installed. But even if they don't, that's not what we
want/agreed to do, see above.
Zbyszek
1:09 p.m.
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 16:45 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> > DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
> > action on
> > a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
> > the
> > system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
> > doing
> > it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> > script.)
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
> installed
> it, and opted into modularity, right?
No, it should be installed by default.
Are you talking about upgrades here, or fresh installs?
It is not being installed on fresh installs presently, and as I read
the ticket, that was intended, per your comment:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2114#comment-653352
"Probably best way would be going back to "Boltron" (IIRC how that
thing was called) and have modular repos in their own fedora-repos
subpackage which are enabled by default, but the package **is not
installed by default.**" (emphasis added)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:09 p.m.
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action
on
> a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on the
> system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for doing
> it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> script.)
Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually installed
it, and opted into modularity, right?
The slightly missing context is that the package is new and did not
exist until a couple of days ago. Previously modular repos were part of
fedora-repos , they have now been split into a separate subpackage
which is not be installed by default on fresh installs, effectively
meaning the whole modularity system is now optional and not available
by default, only if the user runs 'dnf install fedora-repos-modular'.
What we're dealing with now is awkward consequences of this change for
existing installs, where we'd probably want to *keep* modular repos,
especially if any modules are actually enabled.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:15 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:09:57AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What we're dealing with now is awkward consequences of this
change for
existing installs, where we'd probably want to *keep* modular repos,
especially if any modules are actually enabled.
Is it a terrible idea to suggest that MBS insert a "Requires:
fedora-repos-modular" into all of the packages built in that system?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1:19 p.m.
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 11:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 16:45 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
> > > action on
> > > a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
> > > the
> > > system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
> > > doing
> > > it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> > > script.)
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
> > installed
> > it, and opted into modularity, right?
>
> No, it should be installed by default.
Are you talking about upgrades here, or fresh installs?
It is not being installed on fresh installs presently, and as I read
the ticket, that was intended, per your comment:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2114#comment-653352
"Probably best way would be going back to "Boltron" (IIRC how that
thing was called) and have modular repos in their own fedora-repos
subpackage which are enabled by default, but the package **is not
installed by default.**" (emphasis added)
Oh, looking at it again, now I see this:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2406#comment-658315
which seems to suggest that FESCo expects fedora-repos-modular to be
installed out of the box. Well, in yesterday's and today's Rawhide
(default Server DVD install) it wasn't, openQA caught this. On my first
reading of #2114 I figured this was intentional and adjusted openQA to
install fedora-repos-modular , but it sounds like it's actually a bug
and comps and/or kickstarts and/or package dependencies will need to be
changed.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:18 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 02:15:03PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:09:57AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What we're dealing with now is awkward consequences of this change for
> existing installs, where we'd probably want to *keep* modular repos,
> especially if any modules are actually enabled.
Is it a terrible idea to suggest that MBS insert a "Requires:
fedora-repos-modular" into all of the packages built in that system?
Does rpmbuild have such capability?
-- Petr
6:34 a.m.
On 09. 07. 20 20:19, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 11:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 16:45 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>> On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 07:36 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 9, 2020 5:24:59 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
>>>> DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
>>>> action on
>>>> a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
>>>> the
>>>> system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
>>>> doing
>>>> it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
>>>> script.)
>>>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken, it should only be present if the user manually
>>> installed
>>> it, and opted into modularity, right?
>>
>> No, it should be installed by default.
>
> Are you talking about upgrades here, or fresh installs?
>
> It is not being installed on fresh installs presently, and as I read
> the ticket, that was intended, per your comment:
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2114#comment-653352
> "Probably best way would be going back to "Boltron" (IIRC how that
> thing was called) and have modular repos in their own fedora-repos
> subpackage which are enabled by default, but the package **is not
> installed by default.**" (emphasis added)
Oh, looking at it again, now I see this:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2406#comment-658315
which seems to suggest that FESCo expects fedora-repos-modular to be
installed out of the box. Well, in yesterday's and today's Rawhide
(default Server DVD install) it wasn't, openQA caught this. On my first
reading of #2114 I figured this was intentional and adjusted openQA to
install fedora-repos-modular , but it sounds like it's actually a bug
and comps and/or kickstarts and/or package dependencies will need to be
changed.
Yes, I was waiting for
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/pull-request/62 to be mergeable
before proceeding further.
Suddenly it was merged as part of
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/pull-request/65 -- so I quickly
created https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/510 to avoid this situation.
Unfortunately, I wasn't sure if this is the best approach and it wasn't merged
right away. I was not expecting the fedora-repos change to be merged before we
figure this out :(
FTR the details are handled via
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModularReposSubpackage and the tracking
bug is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852028
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
6:39 a.m.
On 09. 07. 20 14:24, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> One just noticed that `dnf autoremove` is trying to remove `fedora-
> repos-modular` and `fedora-repos-rawhide-modular`.
>
[...]
> I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or both.
> Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
> is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
>
DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action on
a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on the system.
However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for doing it. (Except
of injecting that command into some externally executed script.)
Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
6:47 a.m.
On 09. 07. 20 12:55, Igor Raits wrote:
I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or
both.
Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
How much crazy would it be to call `dnf group upgrade core` equivalent on
system-upgrade?
See also, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845562
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4:35 p.m.
On Friday, July 10, 2020 4:39:21 AM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 07. 20 14:24, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>
>> One just noticed that `dnf autoremove` is trying to remove `fedora-
>> repos-modular` and `fedora-repos-rawhide-modular`.
>>
>>
>>
> [...]
>
>> I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or both.
>> Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
>> is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
>>
>>
>>
> DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action
> on a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
> the system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
> doing it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> script.)
Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
Wouldn't that install modular repos on systems that end users have removed it
from? Is there a way around that?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
4:53 p.m.
On 10. 07. 20 23:35, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular" action
>> on a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
>> the system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
>> doing it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
>> script.)
>
> Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
Wouldn't that install modular repos on systems that end users have removed it
from? Is there a way around that?
My idea was:
if fedora-repos-modular is installed:
dnf mark install fedora-repos-modular
else:
pass
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
6:59 p.m.
On Friday, July 10, 2020 2:53:30 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 07. 20 23:35, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>>> DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
>>> action
>>> on a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
>>> the system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
>>> doing it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally
>>> executed
>>> script.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
>
> Wouldn't that install modular repos on systems that end users have removed
> it from? Is there a way around that?
My idea was:
if fedora-repos-modular is installed:
dnf mark install fedora-repos-modular
else:
pass
Ah, gotcha. Sounds like a plan.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
1:52 a.m.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:35:05PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2020 4:39:21 AM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 07. 20 14:24, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> >
> >> One just noticed that `dnf autoremove` is trying to remove `fedora-
> >> repos-modular` and `fedora-repos-rawhide-modular`.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> I don't know where / which the fix should be: DNF, comps or both.
> >> Simply putting the fedora-repos-modular in comps won't help since DNF
> >> is only using them when running `group install/update/remove`.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > DNF should perform "dnf mark install fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
action
> > on a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
> > the system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
> > doing it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally executed
> > script.)
>
>
> Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
Wouldn't that install modular repos on systems that end users have removed it
from? Is there a way around that?
It won't. If a package is not installed, the command will fail.
-- Petr
8:29 a.m.
On 11. 07. 20 1:59, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2020 2:53:30 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 07. 20 23:35, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
>>>> DNF should perform "dnf mark install
fedora-repos-rawhide-modular"
>>>> action
>>>> on a system upgrade, because we want that package to be prensented on
>>>> the system. However I worry that DNF does not possess a capability for
>>>> doing it. (Except of injecting that command into some externally
>>>> executed
>>>> script.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we amend dnf system-upgrade to do this?
>>
>> Wouldn't that install modular repos on systems that end users have removed
>> it from? Is there a way around that?
>
>
> My idea was:
>
> if fedora-repos-modular is installed:
> dnf mark install fedora-repos-modular
> else:
> pass
Ah, gotcha. Sounds like a plan.
Since there was no followup, I've created
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860408
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
1369
days inactive
1384
days old
21 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Williamson -
Igor Raits -
James Cassell -
John M. Harris Jr -
Matthew Miller -
Miro Hrončok -
Petr Pisar -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek