Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert "Unprotect dnf and yum, protect python3-dnf" #1983

Merged

Conversation

inknos
Copy link
Contributor

@inknos inknos commented Aug 28, 2023

This reverts commit 352b174. adding the condition %{witout dnf5_obsoletes_dnf} to keep the unprotected directive for chroots that build dnf with rpm option with=dnf5_obsoletes_dnf

@inknos
Copy link
Contributor Author

inknos commented Aug 28, 2023

related to rpm-software-management/libdnf#1619

Copy link
Member

@evan-goode evan-goode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good; I think this is ready to go once feedback is addressed. If rpm-software-management/dnf5#733 and rpm-software-management/libdnf#1610 are merged to allow obsoletes of protected packages, we could further simplify this and always include /etc/dnf/protected.d/dnf.conf.

Merging this would resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221905.

dnf.spec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
dnf.spec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@inknos inknos force-pushed the ns-revert-unprotected branch 2 times, most recently from b6930d1 to 7db7483 Compare August 29, 2023 14:09
dnf.spec Show resolved Hide resolved
This reverts commit 352b174.
adding the condition %{witout dnf5_obsoletes_dnf} to keep the
unprotected directive for chroots that build dnf with rpm
option with=dnf5_obsoletes_dnf
@j-mracek
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@evan-goode
Copy link
Member

Ugh, it looks like the integration tests failed due to rpm-software-management/dnf5#457. The RPM build succeeded, so I am merging.

@evan-goode evan-goode merged commit 0f15b2d into rpm-software-management:master Aug 30, 2023
2 of 3 checks passed
@AdamWill
Copy link
Contributor

AdamWill commented Sep 8, 2023

can we please get this done in downstream package builds? Thanks!

@jan-kolarik
Copy link
Member

can we please get this done in downstream package builds? Thanks!

It was already released in Rawhide, but untagged due to Koji build failures (see bz here) which is being investigated now. If this Koji build issue is not resolved in several days, I will rebuild the packages without the likely causing commit...

@AdamWill
Copy link
Contributor

Since we're in Beta freeze for F39, it would be best to get a downstream build with just this fix, not an entire new version. We don't want a whole new version for Beta, but it would be good to have the protection restored.

@jan-kolarik
Copy link
Member

Since we're in Beta freeze for F39, it would be best to get a downstream build with just this fix, not an entire new version. We don't want a whole new version for Beta, but it would be good to have the protection restored.

Gotcha, I will prepare it today.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants