Bug 2175427 - When using dnf copr remove, be smarter in detecting repository author from repository name, and offer choices hints if needed
Summary: When using dnf copr remove, be smarter in detecting repository author from re...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf-plugins-core
Version: 39
Hardware: All
OS: All
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Copr Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-03-04 20:19 UTC by Jean-François Fortin Tam
Modified: 2023-08-25 09:59 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-08-25 09:59:43 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jean-François Fortin Tam 2023-03-04 20:19:59 UTC
If I were to do just "dnf copr remove gnome-info-collect", I would get these:

 Error: use format `copr_username/copr_projectname` to reference copr project
 Error: bad copr project format

...so in theory I needed to use "dnf copr remove vstanek/gnome-info-collect"

...however, it would be nice if DNF was more helpful to the user by either realizing that there is only one COPR matching this name on my system even if I don't specify the author's name (and asking if that's the one I want to delete), or listing potential matches with a "Did you mean one of these repositories?" kind of message...

Comment 1 Fedora Release Engineering 2023-08-16 08:14:55 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2023-08-25 09:59:43 UTC
1) As this is feature request, the change will not happen in DNF4 and in current dnf-plugins-core. The development is now focused on DNF5 and copr plugin is complete rewrite there (because python -> C++)
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/tree/main/dnf5-plugins/copr_plugin

2) I am not persuaded that we should try to accept the parameter even it it match only one repo. I think the full classification is the correct way to avoid mistakes. However giving the hint to user is good thing.

3) Being honest - this would be at the bottom of our priorities and will not happen in near 2 years. And may be deferred and deferred infinitely. So I will rather close is right now as we will not have capacity for this.

Though, we will happily review and accept pull-request if you want to implement it:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/tree/main/dnf5-plugins/copr_plugin


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.