On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 18:21, Dan Horák <d...@danny.cz> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:51:15 +0100 > Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 15:36, Stephen Smoogen <ssmoo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 10:21, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> With Wine solved, it sounds like Steam is the only remaining concern. > > >> > > >> I think we could actually remove all 32-bit libraries *not* required by > > >> Steam for Fedora *43*. That should probably be uncontroversial, right? > > >> I know that doesn't do anything to help with our infrastructure > > >> concerns, but it will at least spare most maintainers from fixing > > >> 32-bit build failures. > > >> > > > > > > Going from all the previous infrastructure moves, the Fedora 43 schedule > > > is going to be dominated with the move and rebuilding of the release > > > infrastructure from the ground up. There are always all kinds of little > > > things which pop up and slow down what can be done. The next release is > > > usually then filled with everything that didn't get done because builds > > > and updates were slowed down. Removing several thousand packages in a > > > release would require > > > > > > 1. How are you going to remove it? Everyone add a ExcludeArch: , someone > > > fix koji to only allow a specific list? a shadow koji which only builds > > > for x86_32? etc > > > > We used to do a special list with koji for PowerPC for packages > > optimised for powerv7 as a 'ppc64v7' sub arch in the ppc64 BE days, > > you should be able to provide a list of "end packages" and have > > something like the the critical path script update the full list there > > and populate it for i686. The functionality is in already in koji. > > right, that could perhaps do it for i686 too. IIRC it was ppc64p7
You are correct, the details of this are sadly paging back into memory :-D > "subarch", likely in the RHEL-6 days and there was some handling in > rpm (the tool) so ppc64 and ppc64p7 were considered compatible, but > with ppc64p7 preferred on Power7 hw. And even more IIRC similar It was a nasty hack in the original yum. Thankfully it all went away before we merged the secondary kojis into main koji around f26 so sadly the actual koji details are lost with the ppc instance. > mechanism might had been used ages ago for building i586 kernels when > i386 was the default, but that might predate koji :-) Although there > might be an issue how the buildroot would be constructed, the ppc64p7 > builds were separate buildArch tasks. Not sure if the buildroots were > clean ppc64 and they just produced ppc64p7 rpms or if they mixed ppc64 > and ppc64p7 ... They inherited from ppc64, but none of the the hacks would be needed for i686 as it would be a default arch without any of the sub-arch nonsense. None of the yum hacks would be needed client side because it would just have the rpms that are available for the arch just like any other repo. It would just be updating the build list (what ever the variable is called, I do have it all buried in notes somewhere). From a koji build PoV it should be straight forward, but of course it means the toolchain team and friends would still need to maintain all the build infra packages like gcc/glibc and friends. -- _______________________________________________ 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
