Hello Pavel,
May I ask you to be more specific what is the problem with including references for issues? I am not sure whether your issues are related to issues referenced by Fabio or whether you have in mind something else. It will help us to prioritize the work.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:50 AM Pavel Březina <pbrezina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/13/23 23:59, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm opening this thread to trigger discussion of the roadmap for DNF5
> in Fedora 39 - whether the switch still looks doable for this release,
> or whether it should be reverted for F39 and postponed to F40.
+1 for postponing. We have hit issues preparing CI environment via
ansible and applying workarounds to make dnf5 work is imho not the way
to go with such core tool. It should be there as opt-in so it can get
tested but not default.
DNF5 was released in Fedora 38 where it replaced microdnf, therefore it was possible to test it in Fedora 38
Best regards
Jaroslav
> This is also being tracked in a FESCo ticket:
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3039
>
> The DNF5 Change was approved with the condition that bits that are
> important to the distribution *MUST* work, but this does not seem to
> be the case yet, six months after this was initially approved -
> there's at least a few things that are still using dnf-3 or have been
> broken since the switch to dnf5:
>
> - rawhide mock / koji builds still default to dnf-3 (DNF 4)
> - Fedora CI has been partially broken since the switch to DNF5 (c.f.
> [fedora-ci/general#416](https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/416)),
> making CI results for bodhi updates at least partially useless
> - fedora-review has been broken since the switch to DNF5 (c.f.
> [FedoraReview#482](FedoraReview/issue/482)), which is really hurting
> the rate at which new packages are getting reviewed and added to
> Fedora
> - (not an exhaustive list, feel free to mention other things, I will
> update the list to include them)
>
> We are now mere days before the Fedora 39 mass rebuild is scheduled to
> start, so I think it's time to start talking about the roadmap for
> getting missing pieces into place for Fedora 39, or if that is not
> possible within this timeframe, whether the contingency mechanism
> should be enacted.
>
> Fabio
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
