On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:38 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:11 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:21 AM Jaroslav Mracek <jmra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 6:23 AM Jaroslav Mracek > > > > <jmracek(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Does that mean the issues with dnf [2] we able to be solved all the > > > > time but just weren't investigated? > > > > > > The issue was investigated also with DNF, but the issue was well hidden, > > > because the code uses hard coded set for downloaded elements. For most > > > investigation we used the biggest repository (Fedora) that showed a high > > > memory usage and we tried to mitigate what can we do to improve the > > > situation. The real issue was with update repository that surprisingly > > > uses slightly more RAM then fedora repository. > > > > > > With DNF5 we reinvest it as a completely different issue. DNF5 has a > > > better option for investigation that allow us to discover the real source > > > of the issue. We knew that DNF5 fixed RAM usage for `fedora` repository > > > therefore we continued to search in other directions. Basically we were > > > surprised why we got the report with DNF5 because we know that RAM usage > > > was improved with DNF5 and default setting. It means that there where > > > two issues that overlaps with symptoms but has a different reproducers. > > > Solving the first one (too big metadata to process) uncover the second > > > issue with processing updateinfo metadata. > > > > > > The status of the issue - We have to wait until our patch is reviewed and > > > merged in libsolv and we have to wait until libsolv creates the upstream > > > release, because downstream of libsolv in Fedora is not under DNF team > > > control and the main admin doesn't like any downstream patches. > > > > Looking at upstream releases it seems they don't release often, in the > > last 18 months there's been 4 releases anywhere between a month and 9 > > months apart. > > > > I don't see how it's feasible to sit around and tell users "I'm sorry, > > you have to wait until upstream bothers to release before you can have > > a fix to enable you to update your system" when there is a fix > > available. Can you please explain that to me? It is entirely > > reasonable to pull in a fix that is headed upstream to fix a key > > problem in a key distro component so that it doesn't remain broken for > > MONTHS! > > I agree. But the reason releases don't get made is that libsolv > doesn't have a set schedule, and I can just ask upstream to make a > release and they probably will. > > If the fix is already merged upstream, it's reasonable enough to > backport. What we want to avoid is non-upstream patches, because this > component is critical enough that we don't want that burden.
I agree with not having long term non upstream patches but at the same time patches that are upstream or headed upstream to make things work I think is a reasonable compromise. _______________________________________________ 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
