Dne 25. 03. 24 v 16:46 Aoife Moloney
napsal(a):
=== Reduced footprint === The dnf5 package is a fully-featured package manager that doesn't require Python dependencies. It also reduces the number of software management tools in Fedora by replacing both the dnf and microdnf packages. The installation size of the dnf5 stack in an empty container is approximately 60% smaller than the dnf installation. Currently, dnf, microdnf, and PackageKit use their own cache, leading to significant metadata redundancy. With dnf5 and dnf5daemon, which share metadata, this redundancy will be eliminated.
... snip ...
===== [https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/169 GNOME Software support] ===== The integration of dnf5 support, particularly dnf5daemon, into GNOME Software is currently underway. Developers from both DNF5 and GNOME Software are closely connected and regularly synchronize the progress of their work.
... snip ...
===== GNOME Software ===== Rawhide users will continue to utilize the current PackageKit backend connected to the existing libdnf interface. These libraries can coexist with the new dnf5 package on the same system. Although the setup is not ideal due to differences in package state metadata formats stored at separate locations, resulting in inefficient storage usage, this is generally imperceptible for typical GUI users. Furthermore, the underlying RPM DB remains the sole shared source of information about installed packages.
I don't understand this. So if GS going to use DNF, therefore the
same cache etc, or not? Or what other metadata PackageKit
downloads on top of DNF?
==== Before upgrade ==== <pre> $ tree /usr/bin/ -P dnf* /usr/bin/ ├── dnf -> dnf-3 ├── dnf-3 └── dnf4 -> dnf-3 </pre> ==== After upgrade ==== <pre> $ tree /usr/bin/ -P dnf* /usr/bin/ ├── dnf -> dnf5 ├── dnf-3 ├── dnf4 -> dnf-3 └── dnf5 </pre>
<sarcasm>
Love these versions, as always
</sarcasm>
=== Different system state === The transactional history in dnf and dnf5 is not shared, and they now use different formats. Transactions performed in dnf will not be visible in dnf5, and vice versa. While the history database is not migrated to dnf5, when running a transaction in dnf5 for the first time, an attempt is made to convert and load the existing system state from dnf. This should preserve information about the reasons for installed packages and prevent them from being treated as user-installed, requiring manual removal from the system instead of being seen as dependencies of explicitly removed packages.
Previously, I had issues that migration from DNF4 to DNF5 left a lot of data in /var/cache. How is this going to be addressed? I don't think it is fair to leave those behind and waste disk space for regular users.
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
