#1367 Please define package manager expectations
Closed None Opened 5 years ago by immanetize.

The dnf project has produced a mature package manager in many respects, and there's work underway to add any missing functionality. The change from yum to dnf is a substantial one, so I think it would be best to explicitly define the Fedora Project's requirements for the default package manager. As the decision making body in this context, FESCo is ideally the group to compile such a list.

It might include things such as:

  • Required API capabilities
  • Transaction rollback capabilities
  • Mock functionality
  • Default configuration
    (dnf is capable of behaving differently from yum in many situations, but most of this is configurable.
    the desired behavior should be identified, and represented in the default config for dnf.)
  • Some other thing you know to want but I didn't think of

A wiki page for the requirements and a blocker bug (change tracker?) that testers can block might be an effective way to go about it.


The idea of FESCo writing such a list of functionality from scratch seems fairly unrealistic; we are not going to think of all the corner cases.

Meanwhile, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF does say what the compatibility expectations are, and has been accepted by FESCo.

Is there a ''specific'' reason to revisit?

Replying to [comment:1 mitr]:

The idea of FESCo writing such a list of functionality from scratch seems fairly unrealistic; we are not going to think of all the corner cases.

I agree.

Meanwhile, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF does say what the compatibility expectations are, and has been accepted by FESCo.

Is there a ''specific'' reason to revisit?

Yes, I'm curious why this has come up now.

Replying to [comment:2 jwboyer]:

Replying to [comment:1 mitr]:

The idea of FESCo writing such a list of functionality from scratch seems fairly unrealistic; we are not going to think of all the corner cases.

I agree.

Yeah, that's logical. The idea behind the tracking bug was for corner cases to be identified by testers for review.

Meanwhile, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF does say what the compatibility expectations are, and has been accepted by FESCo.

Is there a ''specific'' reason to revisit?

Yes, I'm curious why this has come up now.

Well, the idea came after encountering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138700 but I'm not after any specific change by filing this ticket. I have observed a lot of bugs and list threads about dnf behavior. The developers have been very responsive wrt RFEs and accommodating different user expectations. I'm concerned that as progress is made, changes will affect the default configuration, making it more difficult to test, document, and evaluate readiness.

Primarily for me, I want to ensure dnf is well documented, as that's the best way I know to prevent user confusion when dnf does not behave like yum did. That will be difficult if /etc/dnf.conf and the default plugins are changed ad hoc towards the end of the release cycle as the developers continue to be responsive to user requests.

Since the package is so critical, it seems like the default config would be a distribution-level thing instead of a defer-to-upstream thing, so I started the conversation here.

I'm inviting DNF developers as they are stakeholders in this topic.

This topic will be discussed at FESCo meeting on Wednesday 2014-11-19 on 18:00 UTC.

AGREED: post to devel list asking for interested parties to improve http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html and revisit change in the f22 cycle to see if there's any critical gaps (+6, -0, 0:0) (t8m, 19:07:09)

I am keeping the ticket open so we do not forget to revisit the ReplaceYumWithDNF in F22 cycle.

As we are now at Alpha Freeze for Fedora 22, it's time to revisit this topic during the 2015-02-25 meeting.

Adding some points here:

When comment:3 was provided dnf-0.6.2 release was available. since then dnf has got 2 updates/releases. I think there was not much change happened to http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html page. Not sure if that mean all required things are already documented there.

When I tried to search for yum test cases I found http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_yum_test_cases but I have not found similar test cases yet defined for dnf.

About dnf plugins development there is a wiki page now https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Yum_to_DNF_Cheatsheet

Replying to [comment:8 pnemade]:

I think there was not much change happened to http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html page. Not sure if that mean all required things are already documented there.

We have documented all reported issues and issues we are aware of.

When I tried to search for yum test cases I found http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_yum_test_cases but I have not found similar test cases yet defined for dnf.

It should work the same for DNF if you s/yum/dnf.

  • AGREED: FESCo takes no action (+8, 0, -0) (sgallagh, 18:35:28)

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata