On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 21:09 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 19:12, Adam Williamson > <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > This message says you're "thinking of adding Passim", but in point of > > fact, it appears to have been added to the package set already, and as > > of fwupd-1.9.5-2.fc40 (built two days ago), fwupd hard requires it, > > It hard requires the -lib -- the daemon is a softer requirement ; see below.
There is no -lib package split in Fedora currently. The 'passim' package provides the libraries. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2278800 - there is no 'passim-libs'. > > > Workstation installs even seems to try and auto-start it on user login: > > Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora (passimd)[2647]: passim.service: Failed at step > > NAMESPACE spawning /usr/libexec/passimd: No such file or directory > > I'm confused why the service definition exists but not the binary -- > to clarify -- you've got passim-libs installed, but *not* passim -- > correct? Ah, sorry, I forgot - that error isn't the 'real' error, it's misleading. That file is actually there, I think. This is the full error: Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora systemd[1]: Starting passim.service - A local caching server... Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora (passimd)[2647]: passim.service: Failed to set up mount namespacing: /run/systemd/mount-rootfs/var/lib/passim/data: No such file or directory Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora (passimd)[2647]: passim.service: Failed at step NAMESPACE spawning /usr/libexec/passimd: No such file or directory Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora systemd[1]: passim.service: Main process exited, code=exited, status=226/NAMESPACE Sep 06 02:27:08 fedora systemd[1]: passim.service: Failed with result 'exit-code'. I'm guessing the "failed to set up mount namespacing" thing is the real problem, and the error about /usr/libexec/passimd not being there is just some odd consequence of the namespacing problem. > > so...at this point, in Rawhide (not F39), this 'thinking of adding' > > feature appears to be basically fully implemented already (except for > > the service start failing). Was this intentional? > > It's intentional in that if the feature gets rejected I'd change the > "Recommends" to a "Suggests". If you'd rather me do the opposite (i.e. > move from Suggests to Recommends if the proposal gets accepted) that's > 100% okay with me and I can do that tomorrow. I do think that would be more appropriate. But you'd also need to split the libs out for this to mean anything. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
