Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1279049
fedora-release package should protect itself from being removed by dnf
Last modified: 2016-11-28 08:40:48 EST
Description of problem:
Each fedora-release should should list itself in /etc/dnf/protected.d
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install the Fedora server product
2. dnf remove cockpit
dnf wants to remove the fedora-release-server package
The fedora-release-server package should not be removed
I could see adding fedora-release, but I am against adding the server/cloud/workstation ones.
Otherwise how can someone switch between products?
It looks to me like every fedora-release-<product> package has a:
So, if the base fedora-release package has a
then this, looks to me, would work, provided that a separate fedora-release-nonproduct subpackage gets created, with the corresponding provides: moved from fedora-release to fedora-release-nonproduct
But digging into the actual reason why dnf wanted to remove fedora-release-server, it actually turns out it's because fedora-release-server has, for some reason, an explicit requires: cockpit. I don't think it's necessary, the server product should be able to run fine without needing cockpit's functionality.
We should probably protect system-release and fedora-repos. The former then covers generic-release when used there too.
> But digging into the actual reason why dnf wanted to remove
> fedora-release-server, it actually turns out it's because
> fedora-release-server has, for some reason, an explicit requires: cockpit. I
> don't think it's necessary, the server product should be able to run fine
> without needing cockpit's functionality.
sgallagh: can you comment on the cockpit side of things? I tend to agree that there's server usecases where users wouldn't want/need cockpit.
There's an explicit requirement on Cockpit because it's part of API guarantee of the Server Edition.
We decided early on that Fedora Server is *not* the same thing as a minimal useful install. There are specific additions (Cockpit, rolekit, originally OpenLMI, etc.) that we require to be present in order to actually be called Fedora Server. In order to represent that, we implemented some of those requirements directly into fedora-release-server. If you attempt to remove those packages, we treat it as reverting to a build-your-own-Fedora setup and therefore remove the fedora-release-server package. (This is useful for analytics as well, since removing that package will be visible in ABRT-reported bugs, helping us to track which Editions are actually in use).
To the original query: I agree that the 'fedora-release' and 'fedora-repos' base packages should be added to the protected list in DNF, though. (Though I don't think it *really* matters, since removing either of those would attempt to remove 'dnf', which is itself protected).
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version'
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.
Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.