On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 03:56:28PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > On 4/15/25 12:21 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025, 18:14 Stephen Smoogen <ssmoo...@redhat.com
> > > <mailto:ssmoo...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 at 12:10, Daniel P. Berrangé
> > > <berra...@redhat.com <mailto:berra...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 11:43:38AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone gone through the effort of removing i686 from a
> > > wide reaching
> > > > non-leaf package? Any advice appreciated
> > >
> > > Can we just stop building for i686 in Fedora in general, instead
> > > of burning
> > > maintainer time figuring out deps problems like this... ? What's
> > > the
> > > blocker and how much longer do we have to put up with its burden
> > > in Fedora ?
> > >
> > >
> > > The blocker is someone making a Change Request and then going to the
> > > Fedora 43 CR meetings with FESCO :). I think the only blocker has
> > > been Steam games.
> > >
> > >
> > > Steam is mostly a solved problem with the Steam Flatpak on Flathub.
> > > ("But boohoo, I want to use the RPM" - I don't care. Valve should make a
> > > 64-bit compatible client already, it's 2025.)
> > >
> > > The only remaining blocker from official Fedora repos, is - to my
> > > knowledge - wine, which pulls in 32-bit multilib libraries on x86_64.
> > >
> > > With work progressing in Wine upstream to make it possible to run 32-bit
> > > Wine programs with only 64-bit Linux userspace, that will go away soon
> > > (hopefully).
> > >
> > > I had planned to file a change proposal for dropping i686 architecture
> > > support entirely as soon as that is possible.
> >
> > Given downthread mails, it sounds like this is still unsettled. So I'll
> > jump in here with a question for the thread:
> >
> > If we eventually need to add equivalent of `ExcludeArch: %{ix86}` to
> > qemu, what are the practical impacts?
> >
> > + For every i686 package with `BuildRequires: qemu*`, or `Requires:
> > qemu*` somewhere in its BuildRequires depchain:
> > + archful packages are now FTBFS, these need to exclude i686 or adjust
> > deps
> > + noarch packages unaffected?
> >
> > + For every i686 package with `Requires: qemu*` in its dep chain:
> > + do we get FailsToInstall bugs filed for i686? archful and noarch?
> >
> > Anything I'm missing?
>
> I'm a bit unclear about the impact on noarch packages.
>
> On the one hand we don't ship any i686 compose to end users, so there's
> no i686 release install on which a noarch package would be used. So if
> an noarch package (say virt-install) depeneded on qemu, and qemu went
> away on i686 builds that shouldn't be a problem, as there would never
> be any i686 install in the real world.
>
> On the other hand, an i686 build root for koji is effectively an i686
> compose, so noarch packages can be pulled in as buildrequires in an
> i686 build. So if the noarch package has a dep on an archful package
> affected by QEMU's removal, that noarch package would seem to need to
> be turned into an arch-ful package so we can exclude it on i686 ?
No, it does not need to be arch-ful.
You'd need to do something like:
BuildArch: noarch
ExclusiveArch: %{qemu_arches} noarch
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_noarch_with_unported_dependencies
It could be even worse if true noarch builds were sometimes scheduled
to run on i686, but they no longer are.
Fabio
--
_______________________________________________
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
