Revert "Unprotect dnf and yum, protect python3-dnf" #1983
Conversation
|
related to rpm-software-management/libdnf#1619 |
inknos
force-pushed
the
ns-revert-unprotected
branch
from
bec6c6d to
26281fb
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good; I think this is ready to go once feedback is addressed. If rpm-software-management/dnf5#733 and rpm-software-management/libdnf#1610 are merged to allow obsoletes of protected packages, we could further simplify this and always include /etc/dnf/protected.d/dnf.conf.
Merging this would resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221905.
inknos
force-pushed
the
ns-revert-unprotected
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b6930d1 to
7db7483
Compare
inknos
force-pushed
the
ns-revert-unprotected
branch
from
7db7483 to
479a8e7
Compare
This reverts commit 352b174. adding the condition %{witout dnf5_obsoletes_dnf} to keep the unprotected directive for chroots that build dnf with rpm option with=dnf5_obsoletes_dnf
inknos
force-pushed
the
ns-revert-unprotected
branch
from
479a8e7 to
108a1ef
Compare
|
LGTM |
|
Ugh, it looks like the integration tests failed due to rpm-software-management/dnf5#457. The RPM build succeeded, so I am merging. |
|
can we please get this done in downstream package builds? Thanks! |
It was already released in Rawhide, but untagged due to Koji build failures (see bz here) which is being investigated now. If this Koji build issue is not resolved in several days, I will rebuild the packages without the likely causing commit... |
|
Since we're in Beta freeze for F39, it would be best to get a downstream build with just this fix, not an entire new version. We don't want a whole new version for Beta, but it would be good to have the protection restored. |
Gotcha, I will prepare it today. |
This reverts commit 352b174. adding the condition %{witout dnf5_obsoletes_dnf} to keep the unprotected directive for chroots that build dnf with rpm option with=dnf5_obsoletes_dnf