On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:22:57 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:19:11AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 10:00:34 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 09:44:11AM +0100, Peter Krempa via Devel wrote:
[...] > > Well that works well when the package itself removes the feature, but if > > the package removal is caused by a dependancy it breaks if anyone build > > something else than the official build. > > > > I guess the package guidelines will explicitly not support that, but > > still it's terrible UX if someone uses anything else than an official > > build. In addition the hardcoded version will also work for everyone who > > used any other custom build package, just not the "later" ones. > > > > Finally the '11.4.0' doesn't even match what Fedora 42 ships, > > (11.0.0-5.fc42) so I don't really understand why we can't use the latest > > version macro in this case. > > Actually now I've had coffee, I remember that we had a user complaining > that we should not have added the Obsoletes at all in this case. > > While ZFS was removed from Fedora, it is still possible to get the ZFS > tools and use them on Fedora with libvirt. > > We have precedent here with enabling cloud hypervisor and virtualbox > both of which require 3rd party tools to be installed. Agreed; In such case though IMO we need to also change that 'daemon-driver-storage' no longer 'Requires' libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-zfs, but rather 'Recommends' or drop it completely since it's useless without extra installation. I vote for completely dropping it from 'daemon-driver-storage' dependency on Fedora 43 and later. > Sheepdog was different because the sheepdog project is dead and the > code was culled from libvirt/qemu entirely. Yes; my point was that the 'Obsoletes' is fine with a specific version if the code was removed from the package itself. But if it depends on the build environment it IMO ought to use a rolling version because otherwise you can get into a situation where it will break. > IOW, we should just remove this "Obsoletes" line for ZFS, and re-enable > the zfs sub-RPM.
