Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

It looks like that the feature made a user case with langpacks broken. See 
additional reports:
Bug 2048394 - dnf should pull weak dependencies in install transaction
Bug 2033130 - exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true effectively renders rich weak 
dependencies useless
Bug 2042808 - weakdeps not working on rawhide system

The feature was requested:
Bug 2005305 - dnf should not pull (already unmet) weak dependencies on updates
Bug 1699672 - RFE: dnf should not pull (already broken) weak dependencies on 
updates

Firs of all I need to clarify that the feature cannot be implemented only on 
upgrades - because there are technical reasons for that - 
1. DNF creates one transaction for all operations (install, upgrades are 
performed together).
2.a Install operation or commands (not only install) also triggers update. 
(example - I have already installed foo-1-1.noarch. Then I will install 
bar-2-2.noarch that requires foo-2. It means the install command will trigger 
upgrade that dnf cannot detect in advance. And if foo recommends something, it 
will be installed)
2.b Install operation with --best (default in RHEL) triggers always upgrade 
when package is already installed but in lower version.


Be honest I do not know what to do. Basically I see only 3 option with one 
additional:
1. Keep it like it is
2. Disable autodetection
3. Start to ignore rich dependencies for autodetection of unmet weak 
dependencies.
   We have a problem to detect rich dependencies correctly in 
autodetections because we do not know whether their conditions were met or not 
in past.
4. In theory the auto-detection can be only triggered by upgrade command but it 
will create an inconsistency in DNF behavior when upgrade operation is 
triggered by the another command (install, buildeps, downgrade, ...) - not 
preferable, see above.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Maxwell G via devel]

On Friday, December 10, 2021 8:29:10 AM CST Kamil Paral wrote:
> Hey Maxwell,
> can you please file a new bug in bugzilla against dnf and copy the problem
> description into it? Then make your new bug block bug 2013327 [1], which is
> the tracker for this Change. This way you'll make sure that this problem
> doesn't get lost and the maintainer has to deal with it before the
> appropriate Change deadline. Thanks!
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013327
> 

I just did[1]. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction!

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033130

-- 
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kamil Paral]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 PM Maxwell G via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 15:17 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
> >
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> > dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> > blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> > In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> > it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> > recommending package.
>
> I am not sure if this was intended, but this change has broken rich
> weak dependencies when both packages are not installed as part of the
> same transaction.
>
> In my yt-dlp package's specfile[1], I have three subpackages for shell
> completions: `yt-dlp-bash-completion`, `yt-dlp-zsh-completion`, and
> `yt-dlp-fish-completion. Here is the `bash-completion` block:
>
> ``` spec
> %package bash-completion
> Summary:Bash completion for %{name}
> Requires:   %{name} = %{version}
> Requires:   bash-completion
> Supplements:(%{name} and bash-completion)
> BuildArch:  noarch
> ```
>
> The intended effect is for the shell completions to be installed at the
> time `yt-dlp` itself is installed if the respective shell package
> (`bash-completion`, `zsh` or `fish`) is already present while still
> allowing users to opt out. However, now this does not work; dnf will
> only install the completions if both `yt-dlp` and the shell package are
> installed as part of the same transaction. I can confirm that this is
> caused by this change, because adding `--
> setopt=exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false` fixes the problem. Replacing
> `Supplements` with forward facing boolean `Requires` did not work
> either.
>
> ``` spec
> Recommends: (%{name}-bash-completion if bash-completion)
> Recommends: (%{name}-zsh-completion if zsh)
> Recommends: (%{name}-fish-completion if fish)
> ```
>
> While I agree that {rich,} weak dependencies should not be reinstalled
> as part of updates, I do believe that they should be installed if one
> of the packages is being installed for the first time.
>
> I also think we should consider implementing better guidelines for
> shell completions in Fedora. I believe that shell completions should be
> split into subpackages and that these subpackages should depend on the
> shells themselves or a `-filesystem` package that actually own the
> directories. Right now, directory ownership is kind of a mess. At least
> on my system, there are several packages that own /usr/share/bash-
> completion, /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions, /usr/share/zsh/site-
> functions, and /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d/. We can also use
> this oppurtunity to create macros for each of these directories.
>
> Management of shell completion packages was discussed further in my
> package review ticket [2].
>
> I am relatively new to Fedora, so please correct me if I got anything
> wrong.
>
> Thanks,
> Maxwell
>
> [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yt-dlp/blob/rawhide/f/yt-dlp.spec
> [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012522
>
>
Hey Maxwell,
can you please file a new bug in bugzilla against dnf and copy the problem
description into it? Then make your new bug block bug 2013327 [1], which is
the tracker for this Change. This way you'll make sure that this problem
doesn't get lost and the maintainer has to deal with it before the
appropriate Change deadline. Thanks!

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013327
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Maxwell G via devel]

Hi everyone,

I am resending this message, because I think it got lost. I sent it at
the begining of a weekend, so people must not have seen it.

I am CC'ing the change owner, as I feel that more clarification is
required. I maintain that this change should only apply to updates;
`dnf install`, `dnf reinstall` should behave as they have been. At
least, this change and all of its effects should be fully explained to
packagers.

We should probably discuss the shell completion stuff seperately.

Thanks,
Maxwell

On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 15:48 -0600, Maxwell G wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 15:17 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
> > 
> > 
> > == Summary ==
> > exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> > dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> > blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet
> > dependencies.
> > In other words: When you don't have the recommended package
> > installed,
> > it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> > recommending package.
> 
> I am not sure if this was intended, but this change has broken rich
> weak dependencies when both packages are not installed as part of the
> same transaction.
> 
> In my yt-dlp package's specfile[1], I have three subpackages for
> shell
> completions: `yt-dlp-bash-completion`, `yt-dlp-zsh-completion`, and
> `yt-dlp-fish-completion. Here is the `bash-completion` block:
> 
> ``` spec
> %package bash-completion
> Summary:    Bash completion for %{name}
> Requires:   %{name} = %{version}
> Requires:   bash-completion
> Supplements:    (%{name} and bash-completion)
> BuildArch:  noarch
> ```
> 
> The intended effect is for the shell completions to be installed at
> the
> time `yt-dlp` itself is installed if the respective shell package
> (`bash-completion`, `zsh` or `fish`) is already present while still
> allowing users to opt out. However, now this does not work; dnf will
> only install the completions if both `yt-dlp` and the shell package
> are
> installed as part of the same transaction. I can confirm that this is
> caused by this change, because adding `--
> setopt=exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false` fixes the problem.
> Replacing
> `Supplements` with forward facing boolean `Requires` did not work
> either.
> 
> ``` spec
> Recommends: (%{name}-bash-completion if bash-completion)
> Recommends: (%{name}-zsh-completion if zsh)
> Recommends: (%{name}-fish-completion if fish)
> ```
> 
> While I agree that {rich,} weak dependencies should not be
> reinstalled
> as part of updates, I do believe that they should be installed if one
> of the packages is being installed for the first time.
> 
> I also think we should consider implementing better guidelines for
> shell completions in Fedora. I believe that shell completions should
> be
> split into subpackages and that these subpackages should depend on
> the
> shells themselves or a `-filesystem` package that actually own the
> directories. Right now, directory ownership is kind of a mess. At
> least
> on my system, there are several packages that own /usr/share/bash-
> completion, /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions, /usr/share/zsh/site-
> functions, and /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d/. We can also use
> this oppurtunity to create macros for each of these directories.
> 
> Management of shell completion packages was discussed further in my
> package review ticket [2].
> 
> I am relatively new to Fedora, so please correct me if I got anything
> wrong.
> 
> Thanks,
> Maxwell
> 
> [1]:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yt-dlp/blob/rawhide/f/yt-dlp.spec
> [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012522
> 

-- 
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email






signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Maxwell G via devel]

Hi everyone,

On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 15:17 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
> 
> 
> == Summary ==
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> recommending package.

I am not sure if this was intended, but this change has broken rich
weak dependencies when both packages are not installed as part of the
same transaction.

In my yt-dlp package's specfile[1], I have three subpackages for shell
completions: `yt-dlp-bash-completion`, `yt-dlp-zsh-completion`, and
`yt-dlp-fish-completion. Here is the `bash-completion` block:

``` spec
%package bash-completion
Summary:Bash completion for %{name}
Requires:   %{name} = %{version}
Requires:   bash-completion
Supplements:(%{name} and bash-completion)
BuildArch:  noarch
```

The intended effect is for the shell completions to be installed at the
time `yt-dlp` itself is installed if the respective shell package
(`bash-completion`, `zsh` or `fish`) is already present while still
allowing users to opt out. However, now this does not work; dnf will
only install the completions if both `yt-dlp` and the shell package are
installed as part of the same transaction. I can confirm that this is
caused by this change, because adding `--
setopt=exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false` fixes the problem. Replacing
`Supplements` with forward facing boolean `Requires` did not work
either.

``` spec
Recommends: (%{name}-bash-completion if bash-completion)
Recommends: (%{name}-zsh-completion if zsh)
Recommends: (%{name}-fish-completion if fish)
```

While I agree that {rich,} weak dependencies should not be reinstalled
as part of updates, I do believe that they should be installed if one
of the packages is being installed for the first time.

I also think we should consider implementing better guidelines for
shell completions in Fedora. I believe that shell completions should be
split into subpackages and that these subpackages should depend on the
shells themselves or a `-filesystem` package that actually own the
directories. Right now, directory ownership is kind of a mess. At least
on my system, there are several packages that own /usr/share/bash-
completion, /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions, /usr/share/zsh/site-
functions, and /usr/share/fish/vendor_completions.d/. We can also use
this oppurtunity to create macros for each of these directories.

Management of shell completion packages was discussed further in my
package review ticket [2].

I am relatively new to Fedora, so please correct me if I got anything
wrong.

Thanks,
Maxwell

[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yt-dlp/blob/rawhide/f/yt-dlp.spec
[2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012522

-- 
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

My colleague told me a very nice argument when we discussed the name of the
option. There is no way to name it by the way that everyone will understand
it, therefore let's make it simple. Anyway I will discuss it in the team

Jaroslav

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM Jaroslav Mracek 
> wrote:
> >
> > Correct, it will effect all dnf operations
> >
>
> So then drop the "_on_upgrade" part? "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps"
>
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
>
>
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 09:14:21AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM Jaroslav Mracek  wrote:
> >
> > Correct, it will effect all dnf operations
> >
> 
> So then drop the "_on_upgrade" part? "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps"

Or maybe "exclude_old_unsatisfied_weak_deps" ?
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

Yes it is correct. Supplements that are not installed during the first
install, cannot be installed anymore with enabled autodetection. There is
no way to calculate it correctly without storing all provides at the time
of installation for each package.

Jaroslav

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Kamil Paral  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
>> I've checked the status quo.
>>
>> Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm"
>> is
>> installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
>>
>> 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not
>> pulled in
>> 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>>
>> Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what
>> way?
>>
>
> Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that
> "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or
> perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a
> definitive answer.
>
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:12 AM Jaroslav Mracek  wrote:
>
> Correct, it will effect all dnf operations
>

So then drop the "_on_upgrade" part? "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps"


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

Correct, it will effect all dnf operations

Jaroslav

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 11. 10. 21 21:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:49 AM Kamil Paral  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've checked the status quo.
> >>>
> >>> Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm".
> "rpm" is
> >>> installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
> >>>
> >>> 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not
> pulled in
> >>> 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> >>> 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> >>> 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> >>> 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> >>>
> >>> Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In
> what way?
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that
> "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or
> perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a
> definitive answer.
> >>
> >
> > It might be worth renaming the option "exclude_from_weak_autodetect"
> > to imply its actual effect.
> >
> > Strawman idea: "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps_on_upgrade"?
>
> If I understand this right, it won't be only on upgrade. Also on
> reinstall,
> downgrade, etc.
>
> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: +420777974800
> IRC: mhroncok
>
>
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11. 10. 21 21:10, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:49 AM Kamil Paral  wrote:


On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:


I've checked the status quo.

Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is
installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.

1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in

Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?



Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that 
"reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or perhaps 
just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a definitive answer.



It might be worth renaming the option "exclude_from_weak_autodetect"
to imply its actual effect.

Strawman idea: "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps_on_upgrade"?


If I understand this right, it won't be only on upgrade. Also on reinstall, 
downgrade, etc.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:49 AM Kamil Paral  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>>
>> I've checked the status quo.
>>
>> Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is
>> installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
>>
>> 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
>> 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>> 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>>
>> Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what 
>> way?
>
>
> Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that 
> "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or perhaps 
> just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a definitive answer.
>

It might be worth renaming the option "exclude_from_weak_autodetect"
to imply its actual effect.

Strawman idea: "weakexclude_unsatisfied_weakdeps_on_upgrade"?





--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kamil Paral]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> I've checked the status quo.
>
> Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is
> installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
>
> 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled
> in
> 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
> 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
>
> Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what
> way?
>

Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that
"reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or
perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a
definitive answer.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 27. 09. 21 15:01, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 27. 09. 21 10:22, Kamil Paral wrote:

 > 3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
 > package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed), 
will

 > it get auto-installed or not?

    No, Q will be not installed. With supplements it is difficult to known when
    it appears, because that information is not on RPMDB.


While it makes sense technically, this might be quite confusing for packagers.


I've checked the status quo.

Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is 
installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.


1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in

Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?


I forgot to mention, here is a copr repo with reproducer_reversed: to play with

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/reproducer_reversed/

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 27. 09. 21 10:22, Kamil Paral wrote:

 > 3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
 > package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed), 
will
 > it get auto-installed or not?

No, Q will be not installed. With supplements it is difficult to known when
it appears, because that information is not on RPMDB.


While it makes sense technically, this might be quite confusing for packagers.


I've checked the status quo.

Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is 
installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.


1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled in
2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in

Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kamil Paral]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 8:30 AM Jaroslav Mracek  wrote:

> > 2. What happens if package P (already installed on the user's system)
> > starts recommending package Q (not installed on the user's system)? Will
> Q
> > get auto-installed together with P's update, or not? I believe it's
> > important to keep auto-installation enabled for *new* weak relationships.
>
> New weak dependencies of package P are installed.
> Installed P-1-1.noarch (no recommends)
> Available P-1-2.noarch (recommends ddd) will install ddd on upgrade if
> possible.
>
> > 3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
> > package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed),
> will
> > it get auto-installed or not?
>
> No, Q will be not installed. With supplements it is difficult to known
> when it appears, because that information is not on RPMDB.
>

While it makes sense technically, this might be quite confusing for
packagers. Up until now I think there were no real-world differences
between forward (recommends) and backward (supplements) dependencies. This
(and also the first answer) should get documented in the Change proposal
and in the packaging guidelines [1]. Can you please add an action item to
the proposal to adjust relevant Fedora docs?

[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

Naming is really difficult topic. We would like to have the same name like 
libsolv has.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Jaroslav Mracek]

> 2. What happens if package P (already installed on the user's system)
> starts recommending package Q (not installed on the user's system)? Will Q
> get auto-installed together with P's update, or not? I believe it's
> important to keep auto-installation enabled for *new* weak relationships.

New weak dependencies of package P are installed.
Installed P-1-1.noarch (no recommends)
Available P-1-2.noarch (recommends ddd) will install ddd on upgrade if possible.

> 3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
> package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed), will
> it get auto-installed or not?

No, Q will be not installed. With supplements it is difficult to known when it 
appears, because that information is not on RPMDB.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>>
>> On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> > For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
>> > support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
>> > updates.
>>
>> Why exactly is this a problem?
>>
> 
> Because it will not happen anymore.

And that is a feature. A system upgrade should never add stuff that is not a 
hard dependency behind the user's back.

There is a better H.264 implementation in another third-party repository.

Kevin Kofler
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> recommending package.

+1, finally a Change I am actually looking forward to!

Kevin Kofler
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 23:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > We could include a meta-package in the default installation, which
> > Recommends the Cisco package on GA but is switched to Requires in a
> > 0-day update.
> 
> We can't require packages from third-party repositories. This is forbidden
> by packaging guidelines.

I'm do not think this applies to the cisco h264 repo. 
We build those packages and sign them and simply have cisco redistribute
them. So, IMHO this is not the same as a 3rd party repo.
A 3rd party is distributing, but we control all the contents.

> Last year I received a lot of negative feedback when asked if I could add a
> weak dependency on package from the RPM Fusion repository.

yes, don't do that definitely. 

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Michael Catanzaro]

Thanks for this change to finally make Recommends work as expected. 
It's been needed for a long time.


On Thu, Sep 16 2021 at 11:31:40 PM +0200, Miro Hrončok 
 wrote:
We could include a meta-package in the default installation, which 
Recommends

the Cisco package on GA but is switched to Requires in a 0-day update.


The plan is to provide a one-shot service that will install the 
packages manually. But yeah, this would work too.


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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 17. 09. 21 v 12:40 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):

On 17. 09. 21 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I like the proposal, but I very much dislike the name (including the 
configuration option name). I don't have better name at hand, but I 
think it would be worth of a bit of brainstorming.

Change name:

Don't reinstall already not installed weak dependencies during package 
updates




Exclude once ignored weak dependencies

or

Ignore once excluded weak dependencies


Vít
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 17. 09. 21 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I like the proposal, but I very much dislike the name (including the 
configuration option name). I don't have better name at hand, but I think it 
would be worth of a bit of brainstorming.

Change name:

Don't reinstall already not installed weak dependencies during package updates

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Vít Ondruch]

I like the proposal, but I very much dislike the name (including the 
configuration option name). I don't have better name at hand, but I 
think it would be worth of a bit of brainstorming.



Vít


Dne 16. 09. 21 v 21:17 Ben Cotton napsal(a):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect


== Summary ==
exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
recommending package.


== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
* Email: jmra...@redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak
dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak
dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the
behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be
backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off.
Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672

The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can
be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf`


== Feedback ==
The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and
supported by many others: See
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for
more feedback.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not
install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from
the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image
size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all
weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment
simply disappear.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** The feature is ready in Pull Request -
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279
** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv
** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from
Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of
default in comparison to upstream.

* Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv.

* Release engineering:
* Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that
discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned
(sub)packages (see
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the
details]).
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this
feature will be on by default.


== How To Test ==
1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies
2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it
will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With
exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be
installed during upgrades.


== User Experience ==
The change in default will help to keep some values for particular
deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling
weak dependencies).
Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they
will be not installed on the first upgrade.
In case when the feature will not work according to the user
expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file.


== Dependencies ==
libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream.
We only wait for the next libsolv release.


== Contingency Plan ==

There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone
the feature and the change of default behavior.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?)
* Contingency deadline: beta freeze
* Blocks release? No

== Documentation ==
The feature will be documented in dnf man pages.



___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Vitaly Zaitsev via devel]

On 16/09/2021 23:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
We could include a meta-package in the default installation, which 
Recommends the Cisco package on GA but is switched to Requires in a 
0-day update.


We can't require packages from third-party repositories. This is 
forbidden by packaging guidelines.


Last year I received a lot of negative feedback when asked if I could 
add a weak dependency on package from the RPM Fusion repository.


--
Sincerely,
  Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 17. 09. 21 9:28, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:18 PM Ben Cotton > wrote:


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect



== Summary ==
exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
recommending package.


Exciting. I have the following questions:
1. Do I understand correctly that this will be enabled by default in F36 and 
later and disabled by default in F35 and older? The proposal text is *very* 
convoluted and doesn't explain this clearly (I think it should be edited to be 
clearer).


Yes. So the default behavior only changes on the new Fedora release, but users 
can opt in to it on older Fedoras as well. (I agree.)


2. What happens if package P (already installed on the user's system) starts 
recommending package Q (not installed on the user's system)? Will Q get 
auto-installed together with P's update, or not? I believe it's important to 
keep auto-installation enabled for *new* weak relationships.


I believe it should get auto installed, but I have not yet verified the current 
implementation does that.


3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when 
package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed), will it 
get auto-installed or not?



I believe it should get auto installed, but I have not yet verified the current 
implementation does that.


4. If there's a scenario where we want some packages pulled automatically on 
the first update after installation, but we don't want to include them on the 
media (possibly because of size constraints or something else), how can that be 
achieved? Has somebody reviewed the kickstarts for cases like these? I think at 
least some localization-related files are automatically installed 
post-installation.


See the other part of this thread about openh264.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kamil Paral]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:18 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
>
>
> == Summary ==
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> recommending package.
>

Exciting. I have the following questions:
1. Do I understand correctly that this will be enabled by default in F36
and later and disabled by default in F35 and older? The proposal text is
*very* convoluted and doesn't explain this clearly (I think it should be
edited to be clearer).
2. What happens if package P (already installed on the user's system)
starts recommending package Q (not installed on the user's system)? Will Q
get auto-installed together with P's update, or not? I believe it's
important to keep auto-installation enabled for *new* weak relationships.
3. Similarly to above (perhaps exactly the same case), what happens when
package Q (not installed) starts supplementing package P (installed), will
it get auto-installed or not?
4. If there's a scenario where we want some packages pulled automatically
on the first update after installation, but we don't want to include them
on the media (possibly because of size constraints or something else), how
can that be achieved? Has somebody reviewed the kickstarts for cases like
these? I think at least some localization-related files are automatically
installed post-installation.
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 16. 09. 21 23:26, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:


On 16. 09. 21 22:03, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:


On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:

For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
updates.


Why exactly is this a problem?



Because it will not happen anymore. We need a new way to trigger its
installation post-install.


Oh. We don't have them installed on the media, but we want them to be pulled in
on upgrades? Is there some legal requirement that forbids us to have them
installed by default directly?



Yes. The patent license for H.264 (AVC) for use with OpenH264 is only
conveyed when distributed by Cisco, which we do through the RPM
repository hosted by them.


Thanks for refreshing my memory.

We could include a meta-package in the default installation, which Recommends 
the Cisco package on GA but is switched to Requires in a 0-day update.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> On 16. 09. 21 22:03, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>> For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
> >>> support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
> >>> updates.
> >>
> >> Why exactly is this a problem?
> >>
> >
> > Because it will not happen anymore. We need a new way to trigger its
> > installation post-install.
>
> Oh. We don't have them installed on the media, but we want them to be pulled 
> in
> on upgrades? Is there some legal requirement that forbids us to have them
> installed by default directly?
>

Yes. The patent license for H.264 (AVC) for use with OpenH264 is only
conveyed when distributed by Cisco, which we do through the RPM
repository hosted by them.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 16. 09. 21 22:03, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:


On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:

For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
updates.


Why exactly is this a problem?



Because it will not happen anymore. We need a new way to trigger its
installation post-install.


Oh. We don't have them installed on the media, but we want them to be pulled in 
on upgrades? Is there some legal requirement that forbids us to have them 
installed by default directly?


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
> > support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
> > updates.
>
> Why exactly is this a problem?
>

Because it will not happen anymore. We need a new way to trigger its
installation post-install.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 16. 09. 21 21:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:

For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
updates.


Why exactly is this a problem?

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Fabio Valentini]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 9:22 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:18 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
> >
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> > dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> > blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> > In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> > it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> > recommending package.
> >
> >
> > == Owner ==
> > * Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
> > * Email: jmra...@redhat.com
> >
> >
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak
> > dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak
> > dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the
> > behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be
> > backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off.
> > Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672
> >
> > The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can
> > be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf`
> >
> >
> > == Feedback ==
> > The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and
> > supported by many others: See
> > [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for
> > more feedback.
> >
> > == Benefit to Fedora ==
> > After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not
> > install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from
> > the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image
> > size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all
> > weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment
> > simply disappear.
> >
> >
> > == Scope ==
> > * Proposal owners:
> > ** The feature is ready in Pull Request -
> > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279
> > ** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv
> > ** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from
> > Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of
> > default in comparison to upstream.
> >
> > * Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv.
> >
> > * Release engineering:
> > * Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that
> > discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned
> > (sub)packages (see
> > [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the
> > details]).
> > * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> > * Alignment with Objectives:
> >
> > == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> > No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this
> > feature will be on by default.
> >
> >
> > == How To Test ==
> > 1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies
> > 2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it
> > will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With
> > exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be
> > installed during upgrades.
> >
> >
> > == User Experience ==
> > The change in default will help to keep some values for particular
> > deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling
> > weak dependencies).
> > Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they
> > will be not installed on the first upgrade.
> > In case when the feature will not work according to the user
> > expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file.
> >
> >
> > == Dependencies ==
> > libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream.
> > We only wait for the next libsolv release.
> >
> >
> > == Contingency Plan ==
> >
> > There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone
> > the feature and the change of default behavior.
> >
> > * Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?)
> > * Contingency deadline: beta freeze
> > * Blocks release? No
> >
> > == Documentation ==
> > The feature will be documented in dnf man pages.
> >
>
> Woot! I'm looking forward to this feature!

I second that, I'm looking forward to this.

However, we probably need to adapt some stuff if this is enabled by
default, because some things have abused the current behavior.
For exmple, if I remember correctly, mozilla-openh264 / gstreamer
support for it are installed as weak dependencies with post-GA package
updates.

Fabio
___
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 

Re: F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:18 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
>
>
> == Summary ==
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
> blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
> In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
> it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
> recommending package.
>
>
> == Owner ==
> * Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
> * Email: jmra...@redhat.com
>
>
> == Detailed Description ==
> The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak
> dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak
> dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the
> behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be
> backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off.
> Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672
>
> The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can
> be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf`
>
>
> == Feedback ==
> The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and
> supported by many others: See
> [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for
> more feedback.
>
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
> After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not
> install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from
> the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image
> size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all
> weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment
> simply disappear.
>
>
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> ** The feature is ready in Pull Request -
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279
> ** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv
> ** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from
> Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of
> default in comparison to upstream.
>
> * Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv.
>
> * Release engineering:
> * Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that
> discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned
> (sub)packages (see
> [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the
> details]).
> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> * Alignment with Objectives:
>
> == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this
> feature will be on by default.
>
>
> == How To Test ==
> 1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies
> 2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it
> will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be
> installed during upgrades.
>
>
> == User Experience ==
> The change in default will help to keep some values for particular
> deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling
> weak dependencies).
> Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they
> will be not installed on the first upgrade.
> In case when the feature will not work according to the user
> expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file.
>
>
> == Dependencies ==
> libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream.
> We only wait for the next libsolv release.
>
>
> == Contingency Plan ==
>
> There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone
> the feature and the change of default behavior.
>
> * Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?)
> * Contingency deadline: beta freeze
> * Blocks release? No
>
> == Documentation ==
> The feature will be documented in dnf man pages.
>

Woot! I'm looking forward to this feature!




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect


== Summary ==
exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
recommending package.


== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
* Email: jmra...@redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak
dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak
dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the
behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be
backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off.
Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672

The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can
be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf`


== Feedback ==
The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and
supported by many others: See
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for
more feedback.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not
install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from
the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image
size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all
weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment
simply disappear.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** The feature is ready in Pull Request -
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279
** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv
** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from
Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of
default in comparison to upstream.

* Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv.

* Release engineering:
* Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that
discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned
(sub)packages (see
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the
details]).
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this
feature will be on by default.


== How To Test ==
1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies
2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it
will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With
exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be
installed during upgrades.


== User Experience ==
The change in default will help to keep some values for particular
deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling
weak dependencies).
Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they
will be not installed on the first upgrade.
In case when the feature will not work according to the user
expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file.


== Dependencies ==
libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream.
We only wait for the next libsolv release.


== Contingency Plan ==

There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone
the feature and the change of default behavior.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?)
* Contingency deadline: beta freeze
* Blocks release? No

== Documentation ==
The feature will be documented in dnf man pages.


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect


== Summary ==
exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies.
In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed,
it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the
recommending package.


== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
* Email: jmra...@redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak
dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak
dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the
behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be
backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off.
Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672

The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can
be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf`


== Feedback ==
The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and
supported by many others: See
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for
more feedback.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not
install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from
the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image
size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all
weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment
simply disappear.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** The feature is ready in Pull Request -
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279
** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv
** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from
Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of
default in comparison to upstream.

* Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv.

* Release engineering:
* Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that
discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned
(sub)packages (see
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the
details]).
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this
feature will be on by default.


== How To Test ==
1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies
2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it
will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With
exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be
installed during upgrades.


== User Experience ==
The change in default will help to keep some values for particular
deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling
weak dependencies).
Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they
will be not installed on the first upgrade.
In case when the feature will not work according to the user
expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file.


== Dependencies ==
libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream.
We only wait for the next libsolv release.


== Contingency Plan ==

There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone
the feature and the change of default behavior.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?)
* Contingency deadline: beta freeze
* Blocks release? No

== Documentation ==
The feature will be documented in dnf man pages.


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure