Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:28:19PM GMT, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 15:41 -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > > On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > > While I follow the philosophy of updating > > > regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and > > > never update, and then would expect an update to > > > Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). > > > -- > > > > The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before > > system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. > > > > I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? > > While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's > > recommended anyway, isn't it? > > I would actually hugely prefer we amend that to say `dnf --refresh > offline-upgrade download; dnf offline-upgrade reboot` or so. It's a > footgun as it stands. Perhaps the dnf5 version could be just: dnf offline-upgrade (and it automatically does --refresh and it downloads and then says "packages downloaded, ok to reboot into the upgrade now? y/n)" ? And if you pass it 'download' or 'reboot' it only does those steps? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
AdamI believe in the KISS principle. Do a simplification change that does it for the great number of new Fedora users who are coming from other desktop/laptop/business systems. Linux is gaining #users. Let us make their migration to Fedora for end-user people as simple as possible for this function. Leslie Satenstein On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 04:28:44 p.m. EDT, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 15:41 -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > While I follow the philosophy of updating > > regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and > > never update, and then would expect an update to > > Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). > > -- > > The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before > system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. > > I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? > While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's > recommended anyway, isn't it? I would actually hugely prefer we amend that to say `dnf --refresh offline-upgrade download; dnf offline-upgrade reboot` or so. It's a footgun as it stands. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On 5/2/24 16:28, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 15:41 -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: While I follow the philosophy of updating regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and never update, and then would expect an update to Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). -- The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's recommended anyway, isn't it? I would actually hugely prefer we amend that to say `dnf --refresh offline-upgrade download; dnf offline-upgrade reboot` or so. It's a footgun as it stands. Even though my personal feet are unscathed by great many online upgrades, I agree it's a low-probability but high-potential-for-damage event. Having said that, in the case of system upgrade, a lot of problems of online upgrades (IPC and ABI incompatibilities, etc) are not very relevant---the system will instantly reboot for the upgrade, right? The bottom line is I am old-school and hate rebooting and the associated loss of 'state', but OTOH most important user-oriented applications save and restore state already. It's just feels inelegant and ad-hoc, but may be the price of progress. I wonder if this means that ostree / CoreOS / Silverblue are the only way out of this conundrum. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 15:41 -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > While I follow the philosophy of updating > > regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and > > never update, and then would expect an update to > > Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). > > -- > > The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before > system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. > > I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? > While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's > recommended anyway, isn't it? I would actually hugely prefer we amend that to say `dnf --refresh offline-upgrade download; dnf offline-upgrade reboot` or so. It's a footgun as it stands. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On 5/2/24 14:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: While I follow the philosophy of updating regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and never update, and then would expect an update to Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). -- The CLI update strongly suggests doing 'dnf update --refresh' before system-upgrade. It doesn't require it though. I always thought it's an odd workflow; why doesn't it just force it? While it might take a long while to complete on a stale system, it's recommended anyway, isn't it? On an updated system it's fairly quick turnaround; I usually lose more time by sitting with an unanswered, unnoticed prompt. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > I don't believe GNOME Software enforces this. (There was some debate about > whether doing two updates in a row was really useful, if I remember.) That > may be a big source of pain. As I recall, *much* of the time it does not matter, but if someone has not kept up with updates the upgrade programs themselves might be too old to properly complete the update (such as if dnf-command(system-upgrade) or rpm needed to be updated). In some previous versions a blocker for release did require that fixes be made available for previous versions for successful updates. While I follow the philosophy of updating regularly, there are likely some who install Fnn, and never update, and then would expect an update to Fnn+2 to work without issue(s). -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > upgrades from F41 to F42. Before executing the system-upgrade, users are > anyway advised to ensure that all installed packages are fully updated. I don't believe GNOME Software enforces this. (There was some debate about whether doing two updates in a row was really useful, if I remember.) That may be a big source of pain. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Adam, > Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure > pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config > when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - > https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which > should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the > openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, > and now it passes. > > By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I > found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - > https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We > would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this > update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds > will most likely start to fail. > Oh, great! We were planning to handle these ourselves, so thanks a lot for help! > The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter > defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle > the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the > update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. > Great, thanks! Regards, Jan On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 8:20 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 22:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag > > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the > use > > > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share > your > > > experience with this new version. > > > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, > we > > > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > > > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > > > The update failed a couple of openQA tests. I will take a closer look > > into the reason in the morning, I'm busy reneedling things for the GTK > > update at present. > > Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure > pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config > when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - > https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which > should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the > openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, > and now it passes. > > By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I > found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - > https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We > would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this > update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds > will most likely start to fail. > > The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter > defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle > the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the > update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. > -- > Adam Williamson (he/him/his) > Fedora QA > Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org > https://www.happyassassin.net > > > > -- > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:16:28AM GMT, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:56 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. > > Yup, that makes sense to me. The upgrade is all run by the previous > release's DNF, not the new release's DNF. Yeah, sorry... I agree, I was confused. :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 22:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the use > > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your > > experience with this new version. > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we > > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > The update failed a couple of openQA tests. I will take a closer look > into the reason in the morning, I'm busy reneedling things for the GTK > update at present. Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, and now it passes. By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds will most likely start to fail. The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:56 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. Yup, that makes sense to me. The upgrade is all run by the previous release's DNF, not the new release's DNF. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Jan, On Fri Apr 26, 2024 at 08:46 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hi Maxwell, > > This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > > not > > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > > that > > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > > switch to > > dnf5 as default. > > > > You're right; we missed this. I'm sorry about that. Our initial intention > wasn't to do a major version bump, but implementing the new functionality > without breaking ABI and API would have required a lot of extra work. That makes sense. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh here. > Would it be possible to provide a testing Copr ... > > > > Sure, as mentioned earlier, there's a dnf5-testing COPR specifically for > these purposes: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rpmsoftwaremanagement/dnf5-testing. It looks like the packages in that Copr Obsolete dnf4, while I want to keep using dnf4 on my f39 machine. I built my own dnf5 package without the dnf5_obsoletes_dnf bcond locally, but it'd be nice to have pre-built RPMs for that. > ... and a porting guide so API users can fix their software > > before this is pushed to rawhide? > > > > We'll add a section about the API changes between dnf5 versions 5.1 and > 5.2, and we'll reach out to the several teams affected by this. That would be great! It looks like work on this has started in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/pull/1456. Thank you. > We'll also ensure that the builds for our reverse dependencies are > passing with this update. We definitely don't want to push this before > these projects are fixed. > Still, I hope no harm has been done yet. That's actually the purpose of > this side-tag, to identify any gaps we may have missed while working on the > switch. The 5.2.0.0 API changes aren't significant, there are though many > ABI-breaking changes. Yeah, as long as we make sure everything is ported before the side tag is merged, we should be good to go. I saw some patches for dnf 5.2.0 compatibility in ansible upstream, so we may just need to backport those. As for fedrq, I have a WIP patch to add compatibility for dnf 5.2.0. The only thing I have not been able to figure out is [1]. I assume stable Fedoras will keep dnf 5.1.0, so the plan is to maintain compatibility with those for now so users can still opt in to the libdnf5 backend. [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/1450. Thanks, Maxwell -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Jan Kolarik venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-26 08:56:48: > Hi Kevin, > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. > > So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > > freeze? > > > > Talking about "something", there's already a system-upgrade command > available in this dnf5 version from the side-tag :) However, as I mentioned > earlier, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet; that's our goal for the > upcoming months. Hi folks, I'm afraid I added to the confusion via a typo. I wondered specifically about the update F41->F42 because F40->F41 seemed to be off the table: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM GMT, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > > Hello Michael, > > > > > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > > > > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? No typo in "F41 to F42", but this functionality needs to be ready by F42 (!) release time, ideally at beta time, so that it can be used and tested. If we consider "dnf5 distro-upgrade" to be a feature then it has to be there by F41 feature freeze time actually. And that is why - if dnf5 as default comes to rawhide now, which is leading up to F41 - we have to be reasonably sure that the distro-upgrade feature will be ready in time for the next (F41) feature freeze. Michael -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Kevin, Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > freeze? > Talking about "something", there's already a system-upgrade command available in this dnf5 version from the side-tag :) However, as I mentioned earlier, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet; that's our goal for the upcoming months. Regards, Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM GMT, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > > > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? > > > > > > > Yes, the system-upgrade functionality should be available before the > Fedora > > 41 > > release date. We're planning extensive testing for this, including a > Fedora > > Testing Day. > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > Lots of people upgrade around then to get on the new release, and also > having it available to test then is pretty important. > > Thats just my opinon... QE might have different opinions. > > > While our goal is to deliver the final system-upgrade functionality > before > > the stable release, > > some adjustments may be made during the Fedora 41 lifecycle to ensure > > smoother > > upgrades from F41 to F42. Before executing the system-upgrade, users are > > anyway > > advised to ensure that all installed packages are fully updated. > > So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > freeze? > > kevin > -- > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Maxwell, This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > not > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > that > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > switch to > dnf5 as default. > You're right; we missed this. I'm sorry about that. Our initial intention wasn't to do a major version bump, but implementing the new functionality without breaking ABI and API would have required a lot of extra work. Would it be possible to provide a testing Copr ... > Sure, as mentioned earlier, there's a dnf5-testing COPR specifically for these purposes: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rpmsoftwaremanagement/dnf5-testing. ... and a porting guide so API users can fix their software > before this is pushed to rawhide? > We'll add a section about the API changes between dnf5 versions 5.1 and 5.2, and we'll reach out to the several teams affected by this. We'll also ensure that the builds for our reverse dependencies are passing with this update. We definitely don't want to push this before these projects are fixed. Still, I hope no harm has been done yet. That's actually the purpose of this side-tag, to identify any gaps we may have missed while working on the switch. The 5.2.0.0 API changes aren't significant, there are though many ABI-breaking changes. Thanks, Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:29 PM Maxwell G wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > Thank you for the announcement. I appreciate the oppurtunity to test the > update before it's pushed to rawhide. > > This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > not > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > that > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > switch to > dnf5 as default. This update completely breaks fedrq due to the removed > methods. ansible, lorax, and osbuild also depend on libdnf5. Have these > applications had a chance to port to the new API? Would it be possible to > provide a testing Copr and a porting guide so API users can fix their > software > before this is pushed to rawhide? > > Best, > Maxwell > -- > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM GMT, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? > > > > Yes, the system-upgrade functionality should be available before the Fedora > 41 > release date. We're planning extensive testing for this, including a Fedora > Testing Day. Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. Lots of people upgrade around then to get on the new release, and also having it available to test then is pretty important. Thats just my opinon... QE might have different opinions. > While our goal is to deliver the final system-upgrade functionality before > the stable release, > some adjustments may be made during the Fedora 41 lifecycle to ensure > smoother > upgrades from F41 to F42. Before executing the system-upgrade, users are > anyway > advised to ensure that all installed packages are fully updated. So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta freeze? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Jan, On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag > can be found at the following link [1]. > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 Thank you for the announcement. I appreciate the oppurtunity to test the update before it's pushed to rawhide. This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did not see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention that the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the switch to dnf5 as default. This update completely breaks fedrq due to the removed methods. ansible, lorax, and osbuild also depend on libdnf5. Have these applications had a chance to port to the new API? Would it be possible to provide a testing Copr and a porting guide so API users can fix their software before this is pushed to rawhide? Best, Maxwell -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hello Michael, Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? > Yes, the system-upgrade functionality should be available before the Fedora 41 release date. We're planning extensive testing for this, including a Fedora Testing Day. While our goal is to deliver the final system-upgrade functionality before the stable release, some adjustments may be made during the Fedora 41 lifecycle to ensure smoother upgrades from F41 to F42. Before executing the system-upgrade, users are anyway advised to ensure that all installed packages are fully updated. Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:22 AM Michael J Gruber wrote: > Jan Kolarik venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-25 07:42:10: > > Hello everyone, > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the > use > > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your > > experience with this new version. > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we > > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? > > I'm all for dnf5 and would use it now (and hat an epsisode on F39), but > since distro-ugrades F40->F41 are off the table (as has been stated) > it's not a good idea to use it in F40 unless you are willing to deal > with autoremove trouble and the like. > > So, if we push dnf5 as default to rawhide now we have to be reasonably > sure that F41 will distro-ugrade to F42 using dnf5. > > Michael > > -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Mattia, Yep, there's a dnf5-testing COPR that serves exactly this purpose: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rpmsoftwaremanagement/dnf5-testing. Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:10 AM Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Il 25/04/24 07:42, Jan Kolarik ha scritto: > > Hello everyone, > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > > side-tag can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the > > use cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and > > share your experience with this new version. > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, > > we plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > > > Thanks, > > Jan > > I'd also like to test it on a real F40 machine (I have been using mostly > dnf5 commands in a F40 VM without issues during the latest months), is > there maybe a COPR repo or something like which allows that? > > Mattia > > -- > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Jan Kolarik venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-25 07:42:10: > Hello everyone, > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag > can be found at the following link [1]. > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the use > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your > experience with this new version. > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? I'm all for dnf5 and would use it now (and hat an epsisode on F39), but since distro-ugrades F40->F41 are off the table (as has been stated) it's not a good idea to use it in F40 unless you are willing to deal with autoremove trouble and the like. So, if we push dnf5 as default to rawhide now we have to be reasonably sure that F41 will distro-ugrade to F42 using dnf5. Michael -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Il 25/04/24 07:42, Jan Kolarik ha scritto: > Hello everyone, > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag can be found at the following link [1]. > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the > use cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and > share your experience with this new version. > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, > we plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > Thanks, > Jan I'd also like to test it on a real F40 machine (I have been using mostly dnf5 commands in a F40 VM without issues during the latest months), is there maybe a COPR repo or something like which allows that? Mattia -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag > can be found at the following link [1]. > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the use > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your > experience with this new version. > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 The update failed a couple of openQA tests. I will take a closer look into the reason in the morning, I'm busy reneedling things for the GTK update at present. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hello everyone, We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag can be found at the following link [1]. Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the use cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your experience with this new version. If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 Thanks, Jan -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
