BetaBlocker +1

BetaBlocker +1

I'm not positive which criteria is being violated here.

If I'm understanding correctly, dnf-plugins-core isn't being updated to the dn5 version on dnf4 systems with the dnf4 version of dnf-plugins-core installed, so some functionality goes missing.

If so, I think it violates the "The upgraded system must include all packages that would be present on the system after a default installation from install media, plus any packages the user previously had (minus any obsolete content)." part of the upgrade requirements criteria.

BetaBlocker +1

According to the bug, DNF5 is not a 1:1 replacement for DNF4 and DNF4 is still installed on the system to allow for use cases where DNF5 is short. With that information on my mind, I incline to be

BetaBlocker -1

and

CommonBugs +1

to explain this to the users.

BetaBlocker -1
CommonBugs +1

I'm not positive which criteria is being violated here.

If I'm understanding correctly, dnf-plugins-core isn't being updated to the dn5 version on dnf4 systems with the dnf4 version of dnf-plugins-core installed, so some functionality goes missing.

If so, I think it violates the "The upgraded system must include all packages that would be present on the system after a default installation from install media, plus any packages the user previously had (minus any obsolete content)." part of the upgrade requirements criteria.

BetaBlocker +1

My understanding on that ticket is that Peter is confused because the dnf package is Obsoleted and replaced, but the plugins remained on the system. This is because they apply to python3-dnf, which provides /usr/bin/dnf-4 and which is also not removed on upgrade.

What Peter is expecting, AIUI, is that dnf config-manager should work after an upgrade it if worked before the upgrade. Which is a reasonable request! But I don't think it violates the release criteria, as written.

AGREED RejectedBetaBlocker

Discussed during the 2024-09-09 blocker review meeting [1]:

We agreed that the bug here is genuine and there ought to be a better effort made to achieve as close as possible as a 1:1 replacement of plugins on upgrade, but it does not violate the intent of the criterion. a sidebar discussion on the "plus any packages the user previously had" wording in the criterion footnote clarified that it is a leftover from the Edition work whose intent is not to make a bug like this a blocker, see meeting log for more details.

[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/blocker-review_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-09-09/f41-blocker-review.2024-09-09-16.01.log.html

The following votes have been closed:

• Rejected BetaBlocker (+3, 0, -2)
  • +1 by nixuser, tablepc, nielsenb
  • -1 by lruzicka, sgallagh

Release F41 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.