On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 4:39 PM Mark Otaris <m...@net-c.com> wrote: > > I don’t agree with this change, as it seems obvious that many users who do > not want proprietary software installed do not want repositories with > proprietary software in them installed either (whether or not these > repositories are enabled) and would want to have to opt-in to that too. > Additionally, disabled repositories show up from time to time, bugs allowing, > so they are not as inactive as the name implies. Not having them installed > serves as a safeguard.
Hi Mark, thanks for the feedback! While there can be bugs of any type, I don't see any reason to *expect* a bug that would make dnf or PackageKit show search results or listings from disabled repositories.Wouldn't that be noticed and fixed quickly? Is the number of users who don't even want a text file mentioning the existence of third-party software on their system significant? If FESCO feels that people wanting to remove the package entirely is a concern, we could soften the proposed fedora-release-workstation Requires: on fedora-workstation-repositories to a Recommends, to allow removing the package. I'd personally prefer to leave the Requires to prevent silent breakage. > Also, users who use some software from the third-party repositories likely > *do not* want all of them enabled It will be possible to opt-out and then enable individual repositories, or opt-in and disable individual repositories. What it doesn't provide is protection against a repository accidentally or intentionally offering an upgrade to a system package. I think this was one of the things that the disabled=1, disabled_metadata=0 system was meant to make better, but the dnf mainainers have explicitly expressed disinterested in implementing this in the past. As a PackageKit-only thing, we're providing users a fragmented and strange user experience. And there's even plans to eventually retire and remove PackageKit in favor of using dnf everywhere. Perhaps a more productive approach to this issue would be to allow a repository to be marked "LeafOnly" - meaning the packages it contains should not be used to satisfy dependencies of other repositories, and should not be considered for upgrades of packages installed from other repositories. Not considering how hard that would be to actually implement via libsolv and what corner cases would be a problem:-) > The stated benefit of the proposed change (“the removal of the state where > the user has opted in to third party repositories but they are not actually > enabled”) is not the benefit; the actual benefit that is wanted is an > improvement to the user experience that is made easier to provide by > installing the repos by default. Well, true - if it didn't affect either the cli or gui user experience, this state wouldn't be a problem! :-) Thanks! Owen _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
