Can we distribute modular .repo files in a separate package?

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an easy way 
to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself and on the mirrors).

Disclaimer: I do not propose to change any defaults, just the delivery mechanism.

Currently, I can do it by editing all /etc/yum.repos.d/*-modular.repo and changing:

enabled=1

To:

enabled=0

This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them 
updated, because they are shipped as %config(noreplace). (If they were not 
shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be 
overridden.)

Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and 
override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.

In order to not to have to resort to manually editing RPM-package shipped 
configuration, I'd like to have a better way of disabling modular repos, namely 
via: sudo dnf remove fedora-repos-modular.

Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?

Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/c/7b32bee388d093c446017f1e33...

Constraint: modular repos are still installed and enabled by default (e.g. when 
we ship nonmodular repos in kickstarts/comps, we also ship modular).

(Nonmodular repos package could possibly recommend modular repos package, 
although I am not so happy about that, due to rhbz#1699672.)

What do you think?

[Dan Čermák]

Miro Hrončok  writes:
> Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and 
> override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.

slightly off-topic, but I'm just going to leave libeconf (a library to
achieve exactly that easily) here:
https://github.com/openSUSE/libeconf

Cheers,

Dan

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:39 AM Dan Čermák
 wrote:
> Miro Hrončok  writes:
> > Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and
> > override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.
>
> slightly off-topic, but I'm just going to leave libeconf (a library to
> achieve exactly that easily) here:
> https://github.com/openSUSE/libeconf

We do have libeconf in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libeconf

It's just waiting on DNF team to use it. :)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?
>
> Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/c/7b32bee388d093c446017f1e33...
>
> Constraint: modular repos are still installed and enabled by default
> (e.g. when we ship nonmodular repos in kickstarts/comps, we also
> ship modular).
>
> (Nonmodular repos package could possibly recommend modular repos
> package, although I am not so happy about that, due to
> rhbz#1699672.)
>
> What do you think?

Yep, I think it's reasonable. Gives the flexibility to opt out of modules
for people who want to, and does change much (as long as the upgrade path
is done correctly) for people using modules.

When the package split is done correctly, with Obsoletes in both new
packages, upgrades will be handled correctly, and
Recommends:fedora-repos-modular should not be necessary. But if people
want to have the Recommends, I think it can be added, because it's not
something worth fighting over. (With Recommends, this will be slightly
less useful to opt-out users, but still better than status quo.)

Zbyszek

[Christopher]

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an easy way
> to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself and on the mirrors).
>
> Disclaimer: I do not propose to change any defaults, just the delivery mechanism.
>
> Currently, I can do it by editing all /etc/yum.repos.d/*-modular.repo and changing:
>  enabled=1
>
> To:
>  enabled=0
>
> This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them
> updated, because they are shipped as %config(noreplace). (If they were not
> shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be
> overridden.)
>
> Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and
> override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.
>
> In order to not to have to resort to manually editing RPM-package shipped
> configuration, I'd like to have a better way of disabling modular repos, namely
> via: sudo dnf remove fedora-repos-modular.
>
> Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?

I think this is a great idea. Although I do use rpmconf after every
update to resolve upstream merge conflicts with config files, I'd much
prefer to avoid the need to edit the files.
> Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/c/7b32bee388d093c446017f1e33...
>
> Constraint: modular repos are still installed and enabled by default (e.g. when
> we ship nonmodular repos in kickstarts/comps, we also ship modular).
>
> (Nonmodular repos package could possibly recommend modular repos package,
> although I am not so happy about that, due to rhbz#1699672.)
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: [phone]
> IRC: mhroncok
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]

[Vitaly Zaitsev]

On 06.05.2020 15:12, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an
> easy way to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself
> and on the mirrors).

I think this is a great idea.

[Leigh Scott]

+1

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them updated, because they are shipped as
> %config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be
> overridden.)

It is a good habit to run

rpmconf -a

after each upgrade. Or you can install

python3-dnf-plugin-rpmconf

Because the divergence will happen anyway. For some configs.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 07. 05. 20 16:13, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them updated, because they are shipped as
> > %config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be
> > overridden.)
>
> It is a good habit to run
>
> rpmconf -a
>
> after each upgrade. Or you can install
>
> python3-dnf-plugin-rpmconf
>
> Because the divergence will happen anyway. For some configs.

I know. But doesn't it makes sense to avoid this particular divergence if we 
have a perfectly working way of doing it?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
...snip...
> Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?
>
> Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/c/7b32bee388d093c446017f1e33...
>
> Constraint: modular repos are still installed and enabled by default (e.g.
> when we ship nonmodular repos in kickstarts/comps, we also ship modular).
>
> (Nonmodular repos package could possibly recommend modular repos package,
> although I am not so happy about that, due to rhbz#1699672.)
>
> What do you think?

Seems reasonable to me. I'd not push it to stable releases, but seems
fine to land in rawhide.

Want to work up a PR? or I guess wait for discussion a bit more.

kevin

[Miro Hrončok]

On 07. 05. 20 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Seems reasonable to me. I'd not push it to stable releases, but seems
> fine to land in rawhide.

Yes, I was only imagining this for rawhide.
> Want to work up a PR? or I guess wait for discussion a bit more.

I am waiting for more discussion (particularly some reasons not to do this that 
I haven't think of yet). I can also draft a self contained change if that would 
be considered helpful.