[CI:BUILD] rpm: remove dnsname

[lsm5]

With CNI going away in v5, there's no need for dnsname in the rpm.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5

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 [lsm5]

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

[Luap99]

These changes end up in podman-next once merged, right?
Is there anything to consider when removing a package? I think it might be better to hold this until we have the CNI build tag work done and disable it on default builds. Only then we should merge this as for now CNI will still work with the podman-next copr.

Unless there is a reason to do it now?

[lsm5]

These changes end up in podman-next once merged, right?

Yes

Is there anything to consider when removing a package?

In this particular case, podman-plugins isn't really affecting any other package. So it can be left alone and we can ask users to manually uninstall it and move on.

If we wanna force cni users on to nv/av at all, then that's another story.

I think it might be better to hold this until we have the CNI build tag work done and disable it on default builds. Only then we should merge this as for now CNI will still work with the podman-next copr.

sgtm

Unless there is a reason to do it now?

no, this can wait.

[rhatdan]

@lsm5 @Luap99 What is going on with this PR?

[lsm5]

containers/common#1767 is vendored into podman main branch, so I think we can go ahead with this one.

[lsm5]

@ashley-cui @Luap99 remind me please, given that we're not doing podman 5 on F 38/39, do we need to care about enabling cni buildtag in the copr build tasks in CI as well as on rhcontainerbot/podman-next copr ?

[Luap99]

#21410 was just merged so this here should be good to go

We do not want to enable cni for 5.0, this will only be done for RHEL 9 AFAIK so we do not break users there. For upstream builds we really do not want to continue to support CNI.

[Luap99]

LGTM

[lsm5]

@Luap99 @rhatdan good for merge.

[rhatdan]

/lgtm
/hold

[lsm5]

/hold cancel