We are proposing to change the Mock configuration in Mock (mock-core-configs), Koji, and Copr to use DNF 5 as Mock's package manager instead of DNF 4. DNF 5 would be used by Mock to install build dependencies into chroots for package builds. This change is related to the build infrastructure and is distinct from changing the default package manager in Fedora.
Owners, do not implement this work until the FESCo vote has explicitly ended. The Fedora Program Manager will create a tracking bug in Bugzilla for this Change, which is your indication to proceed. See the FESCo ticket policy and the Changes policy for more information.
REMINDER: This ticket is for FESCo members to vote on the proposal. Further discussion should happen in the devel list thread linked above.
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue assigned to egoode
please fix title: missing space after the colon
+1
According to the discourse discussion, @gotmax23 thinks we should shift to a system-wide change, while I slightly lean towards maintaining it as a self-contained change. Dear FESCo members, could you kindly discuss this explicitly and provide us with guidance?
I've additionally included a statement within the "Contingency Plan" section, highlighting the preference for implementing this change at least a month prior to the initiation of the F40 mass-rebuild event.
+1 to the change, +1 to treat it as a system-wide change (there's no difference for the change owners)
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/
A self-contained change is a change to isolated package(s), or a general change with limited scope and impact on the rest of the distribution/project. System-wide changes involve system-wide defaults, critical path components, or other changes that are not eligible as self-contained changes.
The buildroot setup can have extensive effect on how packages are built, which makes "System-wide" qualification more likely. OTOH, if we assume that dnf5 works exactly the same, the change could be without any effect on package builds and thus "limited impact on the rest of the distribution". So I think both interpretations "have legs". At this point system-wide vs. self-contained is a matter of filling out a few more paragraphs of text… Maybe change it to system-wide to avoid a lawyerly discussion?
OK, I switched to system-wide change.
Can this change be considered as approved?
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue untagged with: self contained change
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue untagged with: self contained change - Issue tagged with: system wide change
At this point, yes.
APPROVED: (+6, 0, 0)
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue tagged with: pending announcement
Announced.
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue untagged with: pending announcement - Issue close_status updated to: Accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.