Hi, I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin, to move away from its dependency on the PackageKit. This had been announced together with the dnf5 change proposal some time ago [1], but due to some missing work on the gnome-software side it had been postponed. As the work is ready, I'd like to finally finish this part [2] of that Change as well.
I'll wait for two weeks and unless some strong objection is arose here I'll do the switch to the dnf5 plugin in rawhide, for the Fedora 43.
Bye, Milan
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SwitchToDnf5 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SwitchToDnf5#GNOME_Software_support
Dne 14. 04. 25 v 10:02 Milan Crha napsal(a):
Hi, I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin
Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S? That would be sweet.
Vít
, to move away from its dependency on the PackageKit. This had been announced together with the dnf5 change proposal some time ago [1], but due to some missing work on the gnome-software side it had been postponed. As the work is ready, I'd like to finally finish this part [2] of that Change as well.
I'll wait for two weeks and unless some strong objection is arose here I'll do the switch to the dnf5 plugin in rawhide, for the Fedora 43.
Bye, Milan
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SwitchToDnf5 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SwitchToDnf5#GNOME_Software_support
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:31 AM Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 14. 04. 25 v 10:02 Milan Crha napsal(a):
Hi,I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin
Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S? That would be sweet.
Common history was always a thing. Common caches aren't.
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
Common history was always a thing.
Hi, are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time I looked on any such thing, thus I could be wrong.
Bye, Milan
Quick question: why not using dnf5 backend for PackageKit?
On 2025-04-14 8:51 a.m., Milan Crha mcrha@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
Common history was always a thing.
Hi, are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time I looked on any such thing, thus I could be wrong.
Bye, Milan
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:14 PM luya@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Quick question: why not using dnf5 backend for PackageKit?
It doesn't exist yet. I haven't been able to write it because I haven't been able to figure out how to use the DNF5 API. I've asked for some introductory documentation on how to use the C++ API, but that does not exist yet either.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:57 AM Milan Crha mcrha@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
Common history was always a thing.
Hi,are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time I looked on any such thing, thus I could be wrong.
It definitely is. In fact, I enabled autoremove support in PackageKit-DNF because we have been recording the history, and so the reason data is useful.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:19 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:57 AM Milan Crha mcrha@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
Common history was always a thing.
Hi,are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time I looked on any such thing, thus I could be wrong.
It definitely is. In fact, I enabled autoremove support in PackageKit-DNF because we have been recording the history, and so the reason data is useful.
But I thought that dnf5 and dnf-3 don't share that database? i.e. the database is only imported on first run by dnf5 and then gets out of sync?
Fabio
Hi,
On 14-Apr-25 5:49 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:30 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S?
Hi, yes, it means both the history and the cache will be common between the two. No more disk space wasting.
So is this using the dnf5-daemon over dbus, or is this directly invoking dnf5 ? The reason why I'm asking is because even with g-s using dnf5 if it is using libdnf5 and running as normal user we will still get 2 sets of repo metadata downloaded, one as root and one as user?
Regards,
Hans
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 5:28 AM Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On 14-Apr-25 5:49 PM, Milan Crha wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:30 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S?
Hi,yes, it means both the history and the cache will be common between the two. No more disk space wasting.
So is this using the dnf5-daemon over dbus, or is this directly invoking dnf5 ? The reason why I'm asking is because even with g-s using dnf5 if it is using libdnf5 and running as normal user we will still get 2 sets of repo metadata downloaded, one as root and one as user?
Yes, there will still be split caches for these scopes. What changes is that root user scope should share a cache and locking. The original reason that PackageKit uses a different cache location is because software centers aggressively refresh. Locking your CLI package manager while PackageKit refreshes metadata was a bad experience in the YUM days. We have always been able to use the regular cache if we wanted to, but we didn't for this reason.
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 10:02 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
I'll wait for two weeks and unless some strong objection is arose here I'll do the switch to the dnf5 plugin in rawhide, for the Fedora 43.
Hi, I just made an update for the rawhide [1] to do the switch, the gnome-software-48.1-2.fc43 moved away from the PackageKit and uses the dnf5 plugin now.
Bye, Milan
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4a9607a2d0
On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 11:54 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 10:02 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
I'll wait for two weeks and unless some strong objection is arose here I'll do the switch to the dnf5 plugin in rawhide, for the Fedora 43.
Hi, I just made an update for the rawhide [1] to do the switch, the gnome-software-48.1-2.fc43 moved away from the PackageKit and uses the dnf5 plugin now.
Bye, Milan
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4a9607a2d0
Unfortunately the update failed testing. I don't know why we didn't catch this in pre-testing; I thought I'd checked that everything went correctly there, but something must have gone wrong :(
The issue is a bit tricky and may require policy choices. See https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4a9607a2d0#comment-40660... for details. It relates to the longstanding thing where we have a polkit policy that lets wheel users install certain packages via packagekit (but not dnf) without re-authenticating.
On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 19:08 +0200, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't know why we didn't catch this in pre-testing;
Hi, no problem, good the change in behavior was discovered. It's not a bad thing per se, but it's also true the gnome-software can prepare updates in the background, at least download them, then when the user click "Download" it makes it quick, because the packages are ready.
I "paused" on the update, in a meaning I won't push it further until it passes the Fedora QA tests. It'll need changes on the dnf5 side too, most likely.
Should I make it explicit and cancel the update, or I can let it live on its own until the changes are ready? I won't revert the git changes, the mass rebuild is far away, there's some time to make this better.
Bye, Milan
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 10:02 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
I'll do the switch to the dnf5 plugin in rawhide, for the Fedora 43.
Hi, it took longer than expected, but it finally happened and the rawhide with gnome-software-49~alpha-1.fc43 uses dnf5 instead of PackageKit under the hood.
There will be more fixes/changes in the gnome-software and related parts of the dnf5 before the end of the f43 development/release for sure. File bugs related to the dnf5 backend into the Fedora bugzilla, please [1]. No problem if not related to it, they can be moved upstream if needed.
Thanks and bye, Milan
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&component=gnome...
A shame that it coincided with https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f44-change-proposal-packagekit-dnf5-s....
-
Adam Williamson -
Fabio Valentini -
Hans de Goede -
luya＠fedoraproject.org -
Milan Crha -
Neal Gompa -
Roke Beedell -
Vít Ondruch