DNF5 Isn't Ready For Fedora 39 - Now Delayed To Fedora 41

[phoronix]

Phoronix: DNF5 Isn't Ready For Fedora 39 - Now Delayed To Fedora 41

For over a year Fedora / Red Hat has been planning for major package management changes with DNF5. The hope for months has been to use DNF5 by default for Fedora 39 but that is no longer going to work out... FESCo has decided to reject DNF5 for Fedora 39 and then due to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 branching with Fedora 40, this means DNF5 isn't expected by default until at least Fedora 41 in late 2024...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/No-DNF5-Fedora-39

[_r00t-]

Pity, but why they don't make dnf5 coexists with dnf 4 as they did with yum?

[frantisekz]

Pity, but why they don't make dnf5 coexists with dnf 4 as they did with yum?

They did, you can use both dnf5 and dnf4 on the same system just fine...

[Jonjolt]

I guess you could say they did not finish

[fitzie]

It is surprising that compatibility with the broader ecosystem wasn't fully tested (especially ansible, which redhat has significant investments in), but when the glue is just shell commands instead of a nice python wrapper, it's hard to know how people are using the tool.

The bigger problem for me, is that they haven't fixed the memory issue, doing a normal dnf5 upgrade shouldn't allocate 100's of mb of ram and trigger oom killer on the 1gb vms, but that's what happens today. I guess we'll have to wait for dnf6.

[CommunityMember]

The bigger problem for me, is that they haven't fixed the memory issue

It turned out that there were a couple of related issues one of which was not in dnf itself (whatever variant), but libsolv, which the dnf5 team was able to identify, and the fix for libsolv has been committed upstream (and is already in Fedora Rawhide).

[anarki2]

Will it not require 2G RAM for something as simple as check-update? Coz current DNF crashes happily with OOM on Fedora 38.

[fitzie]

It turned out that there were a couple of related issues one of which was not in dnf itself (whatever variant), but libsolv, which the dnf5 team was able to identify, and the fix for libsolv has been committed upstream (and is already in Fedora Rawhide).

i've been on dnf's copr channel (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/co...t/dnf-nightly/) for a while.. just tested the rawhide package, but doesn't do the trick, at least according to systemd-cgtop. Thanks for the tip though, it's nice to know that they're addressing some issues. But they really need to look at the overall issue.

[Anvil]

as far as i know, some Fesco members are trying to get it into F40 instead of 41

[CommunityMember]

as far as i know, some Fesco members are trying to get it into F40 instead of 41

The concern is that with EL 10 expected to branch with F40 as the base that things could get complicated if dnf5 turns out to not truly be EL ready (including all the ancillary things that their enterprise customers have come to expect/demand) as if dnf5 does not land until F40 there may simply not have been sufficient testing to know about potential issues before that EL branching. There are ways to address at least some of that concern, but for now the dnf5 change for F39 is being reverted, and the Fedora project will have to see where the dnf5 team is at some future point as they continue their work. It is possible that dnf5 landing for F40 will be proposed (at which point the project gets to have another discussion).