fedora-toolbox:39 uses dnf4 and dnf upgrade fails due to dnf version conflict

[awesomekyle]

Describe the bug
DNF inside a registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 is still DNF4, but it tries to pull from rawhide repos, which assume dnf is version 5. This means that when running dnf upgrade in the toolbox, DNF fails with "Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf"

Steps how to reproduce the behaviour

1. toolbox create -d fedora -r 39
2. toolbox enter fedora-toolbox-39
3. Inside toolbox: sudo dnf upgrade
4. See error

Expected behaviour
I would expect DNF to allow an upgrade.

Actual behaviour
DNF upgrade fails with error:

sudo dnf upgrade
Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64                                                                                                                                                                        1.4 kB/s | 2.5 kB     00:01    
Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release                                                                                                                                                 29 MB/s |  71 MB     00:02    
Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release                                                                                                                                        1.9 MB/s | 1.8 MB     00:00    
Error: 
 Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Screenshots
N/A

Output of toolbox --version (v0.0.90+)
toolbox version 0.0.99.4

Toolbox package info (rpm -q toolbox)
toolbox-0.0.99.4-1.fc38.x86_64

Output of podman version

Client:       Podman Engine
Version:      4.5.1
API Version:  4.5.1
Go Version:   go1.20.4
Built:        Fri May 26 13:58:48 2023
OS/Arch:      linux/amd64

Podman package info (rpm -q podman)
podman-4.5.1-1.fc38.x86_64

Info about your OS
Fedora 38

Additional context

dnf --version output from within a fedora:39 container is DNF5 as expected:

[root@0241bf64df66 /]# dnf --version
dnf5 version 5.0.15
dnf5 plugin API version 1.0
libdnf5 version 5.0.15
libdnf5 plugin API version 1.0

Loaded dnf5 plugins:
  name: builddep
  version: 1.0.0
  API version: 1.0

  name: changelog
  version: 1.0.0
  API version: 1.0

  name: copr
  version: 0.1.0
  API version: 1.0

  name: repoclosure
  version: 1.0.0
  API version: 1.0

But within the fedora-toolbox:39 container, it's still DNF4, which seems to be the problem:

[root@c9b011fbc331 /]# dnf --version
4.15.0
  Installed: dnf-0:4.15.0-1.fc39.noarch at Mon Apr 10 15:13:01 2023
  Built    : Fedora Project at Thu Apr  6 08:16:49 2023

  Installed: rpm-0:4.18.1-1.fc39.x86_64 at Tue Apr 11 06:21:33 2023
  Built    : Fedora Project at Wed Mar 15 14:11:59 2023

[juhp]

Work is ongoing for the fedora-toolbox container image to be built in the main Fedora composes.
Please wait a little more.

[juhp]

I think you can try to dnf install dnf5 for example - I don't quite remember how I worked around this, though it was a while back.

[awesomekyle]

Unfortunately replacing DNF doesn't work either:

❯ sudo dnf install dnf5
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:30 ago on Tue 11 Jul 2023 08:03:59 AM EDT.
Error: 
 Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: dnf
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

The workaround I found is to use the -i fedora:39 and manually install the packages from https://github.com/containers/toolbox/blob/main/images/fedora/f39/extra-packages.

[juhp]

Yes I tried briefly too - I think I had installed dnf5 before it replaced dnf...
Another workaround would be to roll one's own image locally - it is not that hard to do.

[juhp]

See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216807

[juhp]

fedora-toolbox:39 has been available now for a month and is updated with each F39 compose.

I think this should be closed now.

[debarshiray]

Okay, closing! Thanks for sorting this one out, @juhp