Bug 2219624
| Summary: | dnf5 should warn when 'allow_vendor_change=false' ignores copr packages etc | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Petr Menšík <pemensik> |
| Component: | dnf5 | Assignee: | rpm-software-management |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | amatej, fsumsal, jkolarik, mikhail.v.gavrilov, mosvald, nsella, petersen, pkratoch, rjones, rpm-software-management |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Regression, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://dnf5.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html#default-of-allow-vendor-change-configuration-option-changed-to-false | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Petr Menšík
2023-07-04 15:47:54 UTC
I think this might be because of the switch of `allow_vendor_change` default configuration to false. https://dnf5.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html#default-of-allow-vendor-change-configuration-option-changed-to-false Can you try with `--setopt=allow_vendor_change=true`? Oh, so this is actually feature, not a bug. Yes, --setopt=allow_vendor_change=true helped. But I think especially if I run "dnf upgrade glibc", I would like to be notified it did not intentionally offered be available update. Could it print some warning mentioning a term to search in man or in documentation? I would certainly not find myself. Could it print something like: # dnf upgrade glibc Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Nothing to do. Warning: 1 vendor change prevented, consider allow_vendor_change=true Because this is something I was doing before, I would like some indication this is not a bug. How to continue if this is what I wanted. One line printed if there were some prevented changes should not be too much. It might have its own option, which could be turned off when this is known. For example --setopt=warn_vendor_change=true ? # dnf upgrade glibc Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Nothing to do. # dnf upgrade glibc --setopt=allow_vendor_change=true Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. Package Arch Version Repository Size Upgrading: glibc x86_64 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 7.4 MiB replacing glibc x86_64 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 7.4 MiB glibc-common x86_64 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 1.0 MiB replacing glibc-common x86_64 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 1.0 MiB glibc-devel x86_64 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 37.1 KiB replacing glibc-devel x86_64 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 37.1 KiB glibc-gconv-extra x86_64 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 7.8 MiB replacing glibc-gconv-extra x86_64 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 7.8 MiB glibc-headers-x86 noarch 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 2.1 MiB replacing glibc-headers-x86 noarch 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 2.1 MiB glibc-langpack-en x86_64 2.37.9000-16.1.fc39 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:pemensik 5.7 MiB replacing glibc-langpack-en x86_64 2.37.9000-16.fc39 rawhide 5.7 MiB Transaction Summary: Upgrading: 6 packages Replacing: 6 packages Total size of inbound packages is 5 MiB. Need to download 5 MiB. After this operation 455 B will be used (install 24 MiB, remove 24 MiB). Is this ok [y/N]: y ... (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) > Warning: 1 vendor change prevented, consider allow_vendor_change=true Yes "consider using --setopt=warn_vendor_change=true" > Because this is something I was doing before, I would like some indication > this is not a bug. How to continue if this is what I wanted. One line > printed if there were some prevented changes should not be too much. It > might have its own option, which could be turned off when this is known. Thank you for catching this - this was driving me crazy ;-) (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #4) > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) > > Warning: 1 vendor change prevented, consider allow_vendor_change=true > > Yes "consider using --setopt=warn_vendor_change=true" (ugh I meant '--setopt=allow_vendor_change=true') *** Bug 2220861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 2225014 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** The default has been reverted back: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/pull/745 We would still like to have some message like this though in case the user configures allow_vendor_change=true manually and because in the future we would like to change the default permanently. It is tracked in upstream: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/750 and https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/712 *** Bug 2225396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 2226652 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to amatej from comment #8) > The default has been reverted back: > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/pull/745 Great news, thanks! It might okay to close this then, since you are also tracking it upstream. |