prunerepo

#22 DNF5 support
Merged by msuchy. Opened by praiskup.
praiskup/prunerepo dnf5  into  main

Download 22.patch
no initial comment

5 new commits added

  • rpm: depend either on dnf5 or dnf4 (not both)
  • Use file:// in baseurls explicitly
  • pair_srpm_rpm: migrate to DNF5, keep DNF4 backward compat
  • pair_srpm_rpm: use correct specifier for logging strings
  • pair_srpm_rpm: prepare for the DNF5 movement

5 new commits added

  • rpm: depend either on dnf5 or dnf4 (not both)
  • Use file:// in baseurls explicitly
  • pair_srpm_rpm: migrate to DNF5, keep DNF4 backward compat
  • pair_srpm_rpm: use correct specifier for logging strings
  • pair_srpm_rpm: prepare for the DNF5 movement

Why yield and not plain return?

Do we really want (need) support both. Could we just move to DNF5?

This keeps the interface the same with _get_dnf_query.

We need to keep all the variables above "alive"; when we do return, we got base object garbage collected and it affects query object, too.

Note the 2fc249682806440d237918da85f49a2b1603c9b0 commit, previously we had to be explicit about session closing - dnf5 seems to do this job automatically.

Do we really want (need) support both. Could we just move to DNF5?

Yes, unless we want to leave EPEL <= 10 alone. I don't think anything pushes us to do the hard cut.

Pull-Request has been merged by msuchy

This PR has been migrated to GitHub as a placeholder issue:
https://github.com/fedora-copr/prunerepo/issues/22
Metadata
None
No Tags
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.