[skip-ci] RPM: move netavark deps to netavark package

[lsm5]

iptables and nftables are best handled in netavark package. Ref: https://github.com/containers/netavark/pull/1033

[lsm5]

@jnovy @rhatdan @Luap99 @mheon PTAL

[lsm5]

Strange, lack of iptables is causing centos-stream-9 failures on https://github.com/containers/container-selinux/pull/321/checks?check_run_id=27912263135 but it's not causing rhel-9 failures.

centos 9 stream does seem to pull in libnftnl,libpcap and nftables but rhel9 does not.

[lsm5]

Also I still think we must move this requires over to netavark for at least RHEL 10 and newer, c-common is really the wrong place for that IMO

Yup, let's move iptables and nftables there.

I'll update this PR to remove them from here.

[rhatdan]

LGTM

[lsm5]

https://github.com/containers/netavark/pull/1033 has now merged. Given we have netavark v1.12 expected next week, I'll include a change next week to bump the min netavark version as well in the containers-common rpm. But I think the current change here so far should be good to unblock copr and TMT tests.

@rhatdan @Luap99 @jnovy PTAL

[lsm5]

@TomSweeneyRedHat @rhatdan @Luap99 I would like to bump the netavark dependency to 1.12.0 (ETA tomorrow IIUC) in the rpm spec file for containers-common and have a new c/common v0.60.1 with this rpm change.

If that works for you all, I'll add the netavark dep change in this PR itself.

[lsm5]

@TomSweeneyRedHat @rhatdan @Luap99 I would like to bump the netavark dependency to 1.12.0 (ETA tomorrow IIUC) in the rpm spec file for containers-common and have a new c/common v0.60.1 with this rpm change.

Ugh I realized this dep change before netavark release cut will cause installation issues with the podman-next copr. So, I'd rather wait for nv release.

If you'd like to go ahead with this PR merge as-is, fine by me.

[Luap99]

Yes this should wait for the netavark release first to avoid any issues

[TomSweeneyRedHat]

I'd say wait, and should we wait until 1.12.1?

[Luap99]

I think this is good to merge now as the recent netavark versions are already in stable fedora now, @lsm5 agree?

[lsm5]

I think this is good to merge now as the recent netavark versions are already in stable fedora now, @lsm5 agree?

I'd say so. netavark spec file in upstream main has these 2 packages mentioned as deps, so we should be safe here.

[openshift-ci[bot]]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5, Luap99

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• ~~OWNERS~~ [Luap99]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment