Re: [atomic-devel] should we include microdnf in atomic host

[Colin Walters <walters verbum org>]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017, at 09:52 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> If there is ever a case where people "need" to `ostree admin unlock --hotfix`
> and install a new patched rpm that hasn't been released yet, should we consider
> including microdnf to make it easier to grab those rpms? 

In general, rpm-ostree already has all of the code from libdnf; microdnf just
wraps libdnf.   So anything we're not supporting is really a bug; right?

Isn't your case already mostly covered by
# for x in https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/docker/1.13.1/28.gitb5e3294.fc27/x86_64/docker-{common-,rhel-push-plugin-,}1.13.1-28.gitb5e3294.fc27.x86_64.rpm; do curl -L -O $x; done
# rpm-ostree ex override replace ./docker-*
...
# rpm-ostree status
State: idle
Deployments:
  fedora-atomic:fedora/26/x86_64/atomic-host
                   Version: 26.110 (2017-08-20 18:10:09)
                BaseCommit: 13ed0f241c9945fd5253689ccd081b5478e5841a71909020e719437bbeb74424
                    Commit: 9563ce634fc49bb5efbb6a75d8f6dc4129f154caa9a63a72cca66b4b02a6b5e8
      ReplacedBasePackages: docker-rhel-push-plugin 2:1.13.1-21.git27e468e.fc26 -> 2:1.13.1-28.gitb5e3294.fc27, docker-common 2:1.13.1-21.git27e468e.fc26 -> 2:1.13.1-28.gitb5e3294.fc27, docker 2:1.13.1-21.git27e468e.fc26 -> 2:1.13.1-28.gitb5e3294.fc27

etc?

The `ostree admin unlock` model does allow *arbitrary* changes (not just RPMs)
and `--hotfix` continues that, but it sounds like you were mainly looking at RPMs,
right?