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 ? With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ 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
