Latest revision as of 19:51, 18 September 2019

Set skip_if_unavailable default to false

Summary

Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option skip_if_unavailable to FALSE.

Owner

Name: Jaroslav Mracek
Email: jmracek@redhat.com
Release notes owner:

Current status

Targeted release: Fedora 31
Last updated: 2019-09-18
Tracker bug: #1706160
Release notes tracker: #336

Detailed Description

Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option skip_if_unavailable to FALSE. The option is responsible for behavior when metadata of a repository is unavailable. When it is set to false, it will stop on the first unavailable repository with raising an error. The default behavior could be overwritten by a configuration of each repository or in dnf by configuration in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf.

The behavior is not new, because it was used already by YUM, and the behavior is really essential because all Fedora ropos are already shipped with skip_if_unavailable=FALSE.

The change will be applied in libdnf library, and the changed behavior will be visible for all direct and indirect users of the library: dnf, microdnf, PackageKit, ... .

Benefit to Fedora

It should provide a better security because some Important updates from third-party repositories could be present in temporary unavailable repository, but user can easily overlook it during dnf update because the issue is reported as a warning.

Scope

Proposal owners:
- Backport the following upstream pull requests into the DNF stack on Fedora: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/701

Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Release engineering: #8307 (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed)

- List of deliverables: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Policies and guidelines: N/A
Trademark approval: not needed for this Change

Upgrade/compatibility impact

N/A (not a System Wide Change)

How To Test

Edit .repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d/* and set an url that is not accessible.

Case 1: No skip_if_unavailable in the repo file, in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf or overwritten from commandline using --setopt. Any command that requires available repositories like dnf repoquery will fail due to an error Error: Failed to synchronize cache for repo '<repo_ID>'

Case 2: Set skip_if_unavailable=true in the repo file. Any command that requires available repositories like dnf repoquery will not fail due to missing metadata of the <repo_id>

User Experience

Broken repositories are recognized early, enabling the users to act upon them by double-checking their repository configuration or filing bugs, instead of assuming no upgrades are available.

Dependencies

Depend packages - dnf, microdnf, PackageKit

There are no changes on which completion of this change depends.

Contingency Plan

Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)

The change requires a merge and a release of the pull-request https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/701

Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Should be delivered before 2019-07-24.

Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No

No

Blocks product? product

No

Documentation

https://dnf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/conf_ref.html

Update for documentation: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1358

Release Notes

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{admon/important | Comments and Explanations | The page source contains comments providing guidance to fill out each section. They are invisible when viewing this page. To read it, choose the "view source" link.<br/> '''Copy the source to a ''new page'' before making changes!  DO NOT EDIT THIS TEMPLATE FOR YOUR CHANGE PROPOSAL.'''}}
+= Set skip_if_unavailable default to false =
-<!-- Self Contained or System Wide Change Proposal?
-Use this guide to determine to which category your proposed change belongs to.
-Self Contained Changes are:
-* changes to isolated/leaf package without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
-* limited scope changes without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
-* coordinated effort within SIG with limited impact outside SIG functional area, accepted by the SIG
-System Wide Changes are:
-* changes that does not fit Self Contained Changes category touching
-* changes that require coordination within the distribution (for example mass rebuilds, release engineering or other teams effort etc.)
-* changing system defaults
-For Self Contained Changes, sections marked as "REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES" are OPTIONAL but FESCo/Wrangler can request more details (especially in case the change proposal category is
-improper or updated to System Wide category). For System Wide Changes all fields on this form are required for FESCo acceptance (when applies).
-We request that you maintain the same order of sections so that all of the change proposal pages are uniform.
--->
-<!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
-<!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
-= Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =
 == Summary ==
-Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option skip_if_unavailable to FALSE.
+Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option `skip_if_unavailable` to `FALSE`.
-<!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release.
-Note that motivation for the change should be in the Motivation section below, and this part should answer the question "What?" rather than "Why?". -->
 == Owner ==
-<!--
-For change proposals to qualify as self-contained, owners of all affected packages need to be included here. Alternatively, a SIG can be listed as an owner if it owns all affected packages.
-This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
--->
 * Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]]
-<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
 * Email: jmracek@redhat.com
-* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
+* Release notes owner:
-<!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
-* FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
--->
-<!--- UNCOMMENT only if this Change aims specific product, working group (Cloud, Workstation, Server, Base, Env & Stacks)
-* Product:
-* Responsible WG:
--->
 == Current status ==
@@ Line 60: / Line 21: @@
 CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
 -->
-* Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
+* Tracker bug: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706160 #1706160]
+* Release notes tracker: [https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes/issue/336 #336]
 == Detailed Description ==
-Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option skip_if_unavailable to FALSE. The option is responsible for behavior when metadata of a repository is unavailable. When it is set to false, it will stop on the first unavailable repository with raising an error. The default behavior could be overwritten by a configuration of each repository or in dnf by configuration in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf.
+Dnf team wants to change a default setting for the repo option `skip_if_unavailable` to `FALSE`. The option is responsible for behavior when metadata of a repository is unavailable. When it is set to false, it will stop on the first unavailable repository with raising an error. The default behavior could be overwritten by a configuration of each repository or in dnf by configuration in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf.
-The behavior is not new, because it was used already by YUM, and the behavior is really essential because all Fedora ropos are already shipped with skip_if_unavailable=FALSE.
+The behavior is not new, because it was used already by YUM, and the behavior is really essential because all Fedora ropos are already shipped with `skip_if_unavailable=FALSE`.
 The change will be applied in libdnf library, and the changed behavior will be visible for all direct and indirect users of the library: dnf, microdnf, PackageKit, ... .
-<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate.  A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->
 == Benefit to Fedora ==
-It should provide a better security because some Important updates from third-party repositories could be present in temporary unavailable repository, but user can easily overlook it during “dnf update” because the issue is reported as a warning.
+It should provide a better security because some Important updates from third-party repositories could be present in temporary unavailable repository, but user can easily overlook it during `dnf update` because the issue is reported as a warning.
-<!-- What is the benefit to the distribution?  Will the software we generate be improved? How will the process of creating Fedora releases be improved?
-      Be sure to include the following areas if relevant:
-      If this is a major capability update, what has changed?
-           For example: This change introduces Python 5 that runs without the Global Interpreter Lock and is fully multithreaded.
-      If this is a new functionality, what capabilities does it bring?
-           For example: This change allows package upgrades to be performed automatically and rolled-back at will.
-      Does this improve some specific package or set of packages?
-           For example: This change modifies a package to use a different language stack that reduces install size by removing dependencies.
-      Does this improve specific Spins or Editions?
-           For example: This change modifies the default install of Fedora Workstation to be more in line with the base install of Fedora Server.
-      Does this make the distribution more efficient?
-           For example: This change replaces thousands of individual %post scriptlets in packages with one script that runs at the end.
-      Is this an improvement to maintainer processes?
-           For example: Gating Fedora packages on automatic QA tests will make rawhide more stable and allow changes to be implemented more smoothly.
-      Is this an improvement targeted as specific contributors?
-           For example: Ensuring that a minimal set of tools required for contribution to Fedora are installed by default eases the onboarding of new contributors.
-     When a Change has multiple benefits, it's better to list them all.
-     Consider these Change pages from previous editions as inspiration:
-     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Annobin (low-level and technical, invisible to users)
-     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo (low-level, but visible to advanced users)
-     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/VirtualBox_Guest_Integration (primarily a UX change)
-     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoMoreAlpha (an improvement to distro processes)
-     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.26 (major upgrade to a popular software stack, visible to users of that stack)
--->
 == Scope ==
 * Proposal owners:
+** Backport the following upstream pull requests into the DNF stack on Fedora: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/701
-Backport the following upstream pull requests into the DNF stack on Fedora:
-https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/701
-<!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
 * Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 <!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
-* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE AS WELL AS FOR SELF CONTAINED CHANGES -->
+* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8307 #8307] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed)
-<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)?  Is a mass rebuild required?  include a link to the releng issue.
-The issue is required to be filed prior to feature submission, to ensure that someone is on board to do any process development work and testing, and that all changes make it into the pipeline; a bullet point in a change is not sufficient communication -->
 ** [[Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora{{FedoraVersionNumber|next}}|List of deliverables]]: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 <!-- Please check the list of Fedora release deliverables and list all the differences the feature brings -->
-* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Policies and guidelines: N/A
-<!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature?  If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done?  If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. -->
+* Trademark approval: not needed for this Change
-* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
-<!-- If your Change may require trademark approval (for example, if it is a new Spin), file a ticket ( https://fedorahosted.org/council/ ) requesting trademark approval from the Fedora Council. This approval will be done via the Council's consensus-based process. -->
 == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
@@ Line 150: / Line 73: @@
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
+Edit .repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d/* and set an url that is not accessible.
+Case 1:
+No skip_if_unavailable in the repo file, in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf or overwritten from commandline using `--setopt`.
+Any command that requires available repositories like `dnf repoquery` will fail due to an error `Error: Failed to synchronize cache for repo '<repo_ID>'`
+Case 2:
+Set skip_if_unavailable=true in the repo file.
+Any command that requires available repositories like `dnf repoquery` will not fail due to missing metadata of the `<repo_id>`
 == User Experience ==
@@ Line 171: / Line 102: @@
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
+Depend packages - dnf, microdnf, PackageKit
+There are no changes on which completion of this change depends.
 == Contingency Plan ==
@@ Line 177: / Line 110: @@
 <!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration".  Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages).  If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy.  -->
 * Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+The change requires a merge and a release of the pull-request https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/701
 <!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place?  This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
 * Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+Should be delivered before 2019-07-24.
 <!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
 * Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+No
 * Blocks product? product <!-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next -->
+No
 == Documentation ==
@@ Line 187: / Line 124: @@
 <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
+https://dnf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/conf_ref.html
+Update for documentation: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1358
 == Release Notes ==
@@ Line 203: / Line 142: @@
 <!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change -->
-[[Category:SelfContainedChange]]
+[[Category:SystemWideChange]]
 <!-- [[Category:SystemWideChange]] -->

Search

Changes/Set skip if unavailable default to false: Difference between revisions