(PUP-9198) Add RHEL8 support in the dnf provider

[mwhahaha]

dnf should be the default for RHEL8

[puppetlabs-jenkins]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[puppetcla]

CLA signed by all contributors.

[EmilienM]

ping @hunner Hey Hunter :-) do you know anyone who can quickly help here? it's urgent on our side. Thanks a ton!

[melissa]

@EmilienM if it's urgent, you can always set the provider to dnf for those systems https://puppet.com/docs/puppet/6.0/types/package.html#package-attribute-provider

[EmilienM]

@melissa I know I could do that but I hope a single line patch, that simple, could land quickly but it doesn't seem to be the case.

[kris-bosland]

@mwhahaha , we recently added a feature to blacklist defaults (notdefaultfor). If RHEL is planning to be DNF going forward, please use this feature to exclude older RHEL versions so that this file will not need to change with each new release. See the fedora entry for an example. Thanks!

[mwhahaha]

@kris-bosland Does it work in 5.x? Our current target is not 6.x

[kris-bosland]

@mwhahaha no, notdefaultfor is only in puppet 6. This PR is targeted at master, which is puppet 6 right now. If you want to target puppet 5, you should rebase this PR onto (currently 10-17-2018) branch 5.5.x.

[mwhahaha]

@kris-bosland Ok I can do both. Wasn't sure how backports are handled in puppet.

[kris-bosland]

Thanks @mwhahaha . I am guessing that by 'both' you mean a PR for 5.5.x and a PR for 6.0.x. If you do that, please merge your 5.5.x commit into 6.0.x as part of your 6.0.x PR.

[mwhahaha]

@kris-bosland ok so i've got this targeted to 5.5.x. What's the best way to handle the 6.0.x patch. You said merge this into 6.0.x, is there a specific way that is traditionally done for the puppet code base?

[melissa]

@mwhahaha thanks for retargeting this! Could you also add some tests for this addition?

[mwhahaha]

@melissa done

[mwhahaha]

I have opened #7211 for the 6.0.x branch