[Rpm-ecosystem] Fedora system upgrades in DNF

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 11:46 -0400, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> there's interesting proposal from Will to move Fedup functionality 
> into DNF
> (to support offline updates).
> 
> > From: "Radek Holy" <rholy at redhat.com>
> > > From: "Will Woods" <wwoods at redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > First: Radek, thank you for working with me on the 
> > > TransactionDisplay
> > > stuff. I really appreciate how much time and thought you all put 
> > > into
> > > designing a good API for DNF!
> > 
> > Thanks. API design is a bit thankless task so I very much 
> > appreciate your
> > praise.
> > 
> > > Anyway - you're all probably aware that I'm orphaning fedup[1]. 
> > > As a
> > > replacement, I've written dnf-plugin-fedup, which is a 
> > > prototype/proof
> > > -of-concept that shows how to do system upgrades using systemd's
> > > Offline Updates[2] support.
> > > 
> > > I'd really like to integrate system upgrades into DNF itself - 
> > > or, at
> > > least, get your opinions about the best way to implement system
> > > upgrades. What would be the best way to have that discussion?[3]
> > 
> > I think that the new rpm-ecosystem list is the best place.
> > 
> > FTR, I'm all for integrating Offline Updates into DNF. I believe 
> > that it fits
> > very well into DNF. But AFAIK, I'm the only one having this opinion 
> > in DNF
> > team.
> 
> Offline updates could be a great feature of DNF but at this point I 
> would like to have
> it as a separate plugin [4] rather than in DNF itself. Especially if 
> it's just a proof-of-concept.

Well, to be clear: if this goes into Fedora 22->23, that is
*production*. It is no longer a proof-of-concept.

That said, I don't particularly care if it is part of DNF itself, part
of dnf-plugins-core or a plugin that we (Fedora) simply makes part of
all of the default installs, as long as the functionality is there on
everything we ship.


> I would keep it as a plugin at least for a few Fedora releases and 
> then reconsider merging.
> We plan to move more code into C and share the main logic with 
> PackageKit - which AFAIK already
> supports offline updates so we can maybe reuse that code.
> 

I am really hoping we can reuse as much as possible at the low-level.
I'm concerned about Workstation/GNOME producing a completely different
implementation that will require yet more testing. (Besides, the more
we can implement in PackageKit or the like, the easier it will be for
the alternative desktops to take advantage of it as well, without being
forced to resort to the command line).


> > > Also: I'm trying to write up a Fedora Change Request for this, 
> > > and I'd
> > > really like to have someone from the DNF team as a co-owner. Is 
> > > there
> > > anyone willing/able to take that role?
> > 
> > I'd be interested in it if there are no other tasks to which I'm 
> > going to be
> > assigned.
> > 
> > > Thanks again,
> > > 
> > > -w
> > > 
> > > [1] Short explanation: fedup was using systemd in an undocumented 
> > > way
> > > that turns out to be totally broken; it's unsupportable and 
> > > unfixable.
> > > If you want more details, you could start here:
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1463
> > > 
> > > [2] 
> > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates
> 
> [4] https://github.com/wgwoods/dnf-plugin-fedup
> 
> Honza
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/attachments/20150727/84174887/attachment.asc>