To delivery the feature we suggest to use name of packages from artifact according to available metadata.

I agree.

A resounding +1 for this functionality. However, what is the plan for empty modules?


> To delivery the feature we suggest to use name of packages from artifact according to available metadata.

If a user leverages this functionality and removes a populated module stream[/profile], they would have the content removed. In the empty-module instance, you would get no effect:

  Name             : perl
  Stream           : 5.26 [d][e][a]
  Version          : 820181219174508
  Context          : 9edba152
  Profiles         : common [d] [i], minimal
  Default profiles : common
  Repo             : rhel-8-for-x86_64-appstream-rpms
  Summary          : Practical Extraction and Report Language
  Description      : Perl is a high-level programming language with roots in C, sed, awk and shell scripting. Perl is good at handling processes and files, and is especially good at handling text. Perl's hallmark>

  Hint: [d]efault, [e]nabled, [x]disabled, [i]nstalled, [a]ctive]


Though, the installation of the above module resulted in 155 packages being installed from the two primary repos:

 # yum history info last | awk '/Install/ {counts[$NF]++} END {for(idx in counts) {printf("%3d - %s\n", counts[idx], idx)}}'
  37 - @rhel-8-for-x86_64-baseos-rpms
 118 - @rhel-8-for-x86_64-appstream-rpms

Are we going to uninstall a profile content or a module content? The first case calls for removing the packages listed in a profile no matter what module or a non-module they come from; the second case calls for removing artifacts belonging to the module.

However, uninstalling profiles is not easy. A package can belong to multiple profiles. A package can be installed directly by a package name (or a RPM provide or a file name), not by a profile. And should keep removing transitively dependent packages from foreign modules or non-modules? And if not, why should we stop at a border of one module? Also uninstalling profiles is not enough for purging a module content. There can be artifacts not listed in any profile.

I believe we should follow the rule that uninstalls all artifacts. Because if not, how deeply should we follow the dependency tree? Up to glibc? I woulnd't complicated this feature. It's goal is removing artifacts after resetting a stream. Nothing more. Actually DNF could simply ask after resetting a stream whether a user wants to uninstall the former stream content, so that the user does not have to issue yet another command just to follow recommendation of the same tool.

I created a pull request (https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1536) that adds --all option for module remove command. It also adds `module repoquery` command that can be used with --available and --installed options.

Tests: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/ci-dnf-stack/pull/698

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:1823