Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

* Andrii Nakryiko: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:08 AM Davide Cavalca > wrote: >> >> On 2025-06-24 12:06, Florian Weimer wrote: >> > Sorry, I tried to make clear that this is regular C code compiled with >> > the -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer flag, like the rest of the >> > distribution. >> > >> >

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:09, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:25:09AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): > > I realized I wasn't clear on what I meant by a microOS. This would be > only > > the libraries and tools needed to run a specific utility on a 64 bit > kernel > > > Which itse

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > If we only want to build a small subset of packages as i686, then > rather than doing it as an architecture in koji, IMHO, we could > consider doing it as cross-compiled target, creating sub-RPMs > from the native x86_64 package, as we d

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On 6/24/25 5:02 AM, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: * Name: [[User:Decathorpe| Fabio Valentini]], [[User:Fale|Fale]], [[User:Kevin|Kevin Fenzi]] Thank you, Fabio V., for engaging in the discussion on this topic. I hope to see Fabio L. and Kevin involved, too. This is undoubtedly one of

Re: GNU screen maintainer

Hi Dick, sorry for the delay in my response, there were other high priority tasks I had to deal with first. I'll take a look at your contribution and update the screen package. Best regards Josef Ridky Senior Software Engineer Base Utils Team Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:00

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

* Davide Cavalca: > On 2025-06-22 16:17, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> Unrelated to this, do you know how SFrame support (ie. in userspace) >>> is going? This was/is the great hope for fast, low overhead stack >>> traces without frame pointers, but it's all gone a bit quiet. The >>> last thing I hea

Fedora eln compose report: 20250625.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-eln-20250624.n.0 NEW: Fedora-eln-20250625.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 131 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 106 Downgraded packages: 1 Size of added packages: 198.51 MiB Size of dropped packages:22.57

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

Chris Adams wrote: > Given the questionable changes made to X.Org by the lead (only?) > developer of X11Libre before being removed from the project, including > possible license violations The "license violations" are actually moving a few lines of mostly trivial declarations from one header file

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:04:52AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > > What else would be high profile enough *in Fedora* to merit a > > blocker ? IMHO external apps should not influence our decision, > > and must adapt to what the distro decides to provide.

F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 Discussion thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-389-directory-server-3-2-0-self-contained/156322 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Change. As part o

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:02:56AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > == Detailed Description == snip > This Change Proposal implements the next two (and last) steps: > > * Packages built for the i686 architecture are no longer included in > x86_64 repositories (dropping "multilib

F43 Change Proposal: Ruby on Rails 8.0 (self-contained)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_on_Rails_8.0 Discussion thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-ruby-on-rails-8-0-self-contained/156327 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes proc

[Bug 2374275] Upgrade perl-XML-Twig to 3.54

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374275 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Apologies, for clarification this is an F44 change proposal. -- ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.f

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Substitute Sans For Mono (self-contained)

Hi Michel, Thank you for your suggestion and sorry for the late reply. I missed this email. Sure, that is a valid point. updated the title. On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 8:33 PM Michel Lind wrote: > > On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 14:45 +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce > wrote: > > Wiki - https://fedo

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:26, Michal Schorm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:08 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:02:56AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via > devel-announce wrote: > > > == Dependencies == > > > * steam: adapt or drop RPM package from default third-party > re

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:25:09AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): > I realized I wasn't clear on what I meant by a microOS. This would be only > the libraries and tools needed to run a specific utility on a 64 bit kernel > Which itself is not a small project because the libraries and tools need t

Re: GNU screen maintainer

Hi Dick. Wait some days for a reply of Josef to this list. On 24/06/25 20:59, Dick Marinus wrote: Hello, I'm trying to get in contact with the maintainer of GNU screen (Josef Ridky). I've created a pull request: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/screen/pull-request/6 To update to a patched

[Bug 2374437] CVE-2025-6545 perl-Crypt-PBKDF2: pbkdf2 silently returns predictable key material [epel-9]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374437 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|NEW

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Ian Pilcher wrote: On 6/24/25 10:42 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Your Kerberos realm with dots replaced by dash. You can also tell the naming based on the instance name: /etc/dirsrv/slapd-EXAMPLE-TEST OK. Looks like I'm using the 'bdb' database format. Looking back at this

Re: Dropping i686 from NodeJS build architectures

Hello again, and sorry for the delay in replies. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 6:12 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > It'd help a lot to compile a list of affected packages using > repoquery… Without that it's hard to give any definite answers. Not sure what is the "correct

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:08 AM Davide Cavalca wrote: > > On 2025-06-24 12:06, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Sorry, I tried to make clear that this is regular C code compiled with > > the -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer flag, like the rest of the > > distribution. > > > > The only way in which glibc is

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 2025-06-24 at 21:58 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > This places much of > the burden of support onto the people > who want such support (and while I do > realize that some of the people who want > support may not be able to provide the > MR, that means they will need to > find/fund someone

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 6/24/25 6:03 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: >> On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >>>  How to check what DB 389 is using, before system-upgrade? >> >> # dsconf EXAMPLE-TEST backend config get | grep nsslapd-backend-implement >> nsslapd-backend-implement: bdb > # dsconf E

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:39 PM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > > Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/X11Libre > Discussion thread - > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-x11libre-system-wide/156330 > > This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. > This d

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:07 PM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > > Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_support > Discussion thread - > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-drop-i686-support-system-wide/156324 > > This is a proposed Change for Fedo

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On 6/24/25 6:45 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:25:23AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:09, Petr Pisar wrote: V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:25:09AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): I realized I wasn't clear on what I meant by a microOS. This woul

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:07 AM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > By dropping completely the i686 architecture, Fedora will decrease the > burden on package maintainers, release engineering, infrastructure, > and users. A completely out-of-the-box alternative to reducing package maintai

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

I for one use steam on Fedora. And the i686 packages are critical path for building the flatpak, right? (Though I admit I am not entirely sure inside steam where the line is between what is native and what is encapsulated inside the steam runtimes.)We also have Nobara downstream and one of its chie

svt-av1 update to 3.x

note that the update is abi-incompatible and has a SONAME bump from 2 -> 3. you may want to test any affected packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/solomoncyj/svt/builds/ to check if it workd we will be targeting f43 for its release -- ___

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said: > To make the discussion concrete, could you grab a list of the actual > libraries that we're talking about here? I'm interested in how hard > it would be to adapt them to cross compilation as Dan mentioned upthread. Just looking at a running copy of th

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

* Daniel P. Berrangé: > What kind of "potential issues" are liable to justify reversing > the decision to drop i386 ? > > Assuming we confirm that the Wine change is just a formality at > before approving this change, that would address the big blocker > in Fedora. > > What else would be high prof

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On 6/24/25 4:40 AM, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: == User Experience == Directory server instances created since Fedora 40 and using the default lmdb database are not impacted (that is typically the case for freeipa users). Are you sure that this is really typical? According to the t

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On 6/24/25 10:42 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Your Kerberos realm with dots replaced by dash. You can also tell the naming based on the instance name: /etc/dirsrv/slapd-EXAMPLE-TEST OK. Looks like I'm using the 'bdb' database format. Looking back at this thread, I see this: On 6/24/25 6:03 AM,

Re: GNU screen maintainer

Please follow the steps in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/#steps to start the Non-Responsive Maintainer Process. If this is your attempt to follow Step 3 there, you did not link the Bugzilla ticket or CC the maintainer. On Tue, Jun 24, 2025

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 07:48:56AM -, Indu Bhagat wrote: > For updated information about SFrame > https://sourceware.org/binutils/wiki/sframe. There is active involvement in > many of the projects involving SFrame at this time, and the status is > evolving. Bookmarked it, thanks! Rich. --

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:26:27PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Red Hat's enterprise ambitions may not take it near Valve headquarters, but > I do not see why gaming has to be the primary selling point. RHEL 10 removed > i686 but I would not be surprised to see it return once customers attem

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:25:23AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:09, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:25:09AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): > > > I realized I wasn't clear on what I meant by a microOS. This would be > > only > > > the libraries and

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On 2025-06-22 16:17, Florian Weimer wrote: Unrelated to this, do you know how SFrame support (ie. in userspace) is going? This was/is the great hope for fast, low overhead stack traces without frame pointers, but it's all gone a bit quiet. The last thing I heard was a talk by Steve Rostedt a fe

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On 2025-06-24 12:06, Florian Weimer wrote: Sorry, I tried to make clear that this is regular C code compiled with the -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer flag, like the rest of the distribution. The only way in which glibc is special is that Wilco Dijkstra from Arm has recently optimized malloc to make

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 2025-06-24 at 12:38 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > I guess it's a question of which is the bigger burden - taking that same > package set and just building it directly for i686 (mostly burden on > infrastructure, some on packagers for build failures or such) I'd like to highlight that this is

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Hello guys, As I did it in discussion.fp.o, I need to remind everyone that the latest update of Fedora Strategy [1] that one the objectives is to grow our users base, so potentially killing gaming goes directly against that strategy. Being that said, I think all points discussed here are really i

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > Well the set of mingw packages we provide is pretty huge, with many layers > of dependencies down to the base C runtime. Conceptually it isn't difficult > work, just time consuming to get the minimal viable set of packages > working, and a further maint

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 05:23:24PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > If we only want to build a small subset of packages as i686, then > > rather than doing it as an architecture in koji, IMHO, we could > > consider doing it as cros

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said: > I have no doubt Valve is aware of the > requirement(s). There have been hints > they might be working on such. They > have, to this point, not announced an > actual timeline for they might offer > such a 64-bit program. It probably got called version 3,

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:33 PM Richard Hughes via devel wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 June 2025 at 14:19, Chris Adams wrote: > > anybody can fork something and make a bunch of commits. > > For the sake of all of our sanity, I'd really appreciate if FESCo could > decide on this one really quickly (e

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

* Daniel P. Berrangé: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 05:52:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Petr Pisar: >> >> > Is Fedora relevant for Steam? The download page >> > only offers a Debian package and >> > the >> > only more verbose message I found >> >

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > What else would be high profile enough *in Fedora* to merit a > blocker ? IMHO external apps should not influence our decision, > and must adapt to what the distro decides to provide. This is a big decision IMHO: is Fedora going to be a "closed" ecosys

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:02 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Yeah, that's the catch. Has anybody tried talking to somebody at Valve > (if they can be found)? This isn't a Fedora-exclusive issue; Ubuntu and > SuSE (and all the downstreams of each) are probably looking at the same > thing at some point.

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:43:37AM -0500, Martin Jackson wrote: > I for one use steam on Fedora. And the i686 packages are critical path for > building the flatpak, right? (Though I admit I am not entirely sure inside > steam where the line is between what is native and what is encapsulated inside

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ian Pilcher said: Keeping in mind that some people won't be aware of this change before they pull the trigger on the update from F42 -> F43, this seems like it will render their IdM servers completely broken, with basically no path to re

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 05:52:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Petr Pisar: > > > Is Fedora relevant for Steam? The download page > > only offers a Debian package and the > > only more verbose message I found > >

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Once upon a time, Mateus Rodrigues Costa said: > Dropping i686 support and the Steam problem is interesting for me > because I see it like this: Steam games shouldn't be affected but the > Steam client will be. Heck, almost all the games I run are Windows+Proton anyway... a couple I have to set t

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

* Petr Pisar: > Is Fedora relevant for Steam? The download page > only offers a Debian package and the > only more verbose message I found > talks about > Ubuntu LTS. These days, the default F

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:29:37PM +0200, Michal Schorm napsal(a): > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:49 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:26, Michal Schorm wrote: > >> If we leave a significant portion of users without an upgrade path for > > The key problem here is "significant po

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Em ter., 24 de jun. de 2025 às 07:07, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce escreveu: > > Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_support > Discussion thread - > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-drop-i686-support-system-wide/156324 > > This is a proposed Change

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On 6/24/25 6:03 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote:  How to check what DB 389 is using, before system-upgrade? # dsconf EXAMPLE-TEST backend config get | grep nsslapd-backend-implement nsslapd-backend-implement: bdb # dsconf EXAMPLE-TEST backend config get |

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:44 PM Martin Jackson wrote: > We also have Nobara downstream and one of its chief selling points is gaming. Or e.g. Bazzite. https://bazzite.gg/ -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Databases Team Red Hat -- On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:44 PM Martin Jackson wrote: > > I

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 09:25:23AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 09:09, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:25:09AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): > > > > I realized I wasn't clear on what I

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:03:08AM -0500, Jonathan Wright via devel napsal(a): > Yes I think it's still very relevant to Fedora. You don't find Arch listed > either, but tons of people run Steam on Arch. > I meant whether the discussion Michal wants is relevant for Valve, LLC. -- Petr signature.

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:03:09PM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:40:55AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > > * Directory server

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

On Tuesday, 24 June 2025 at 14:19, Chris Adams wrote: > anybody can fork something and make a bunch of commits. For the sake of all of our sanity, I'd really appreciate if FESCo could decide on this one really quickly (e.g. putting out a statement) and avoid what could be a most unpleasant flam

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce said: > Replace the X.Org X11 Xserver (xorg-x11-xserver) with the > [https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver X11Libre (XLibre) Xserver], an > actively maintained fork. Given the questionable changes made to X.Org by the lead (only?) developer of X11

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Yes I think it's still very relevant to Fedora. You don't find Arch listed either, but tons of people run Steam on Arch. On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:01 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:29:37PM +0200, Michal Schorm napsal(a): > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:49 PM Stephen Smoogen > w

[Bug 2374459] CVE-2025-6545 perl-PBKDF2-Tiny: pbkdf2 silently returns predictable key material [fedora-42]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2374459 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

F43 Change Proposal: Golang 1.25 (system wide)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.25 Discussion thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-golang-1-25-system-wide/156325 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals a

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 02:03:09PM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:40:55AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce > > wrote: > > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > > > * Directory server instances already using lmdb as

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:49 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 07:26, Michal Schorm wrote: >> If we leave a significant portion of users without an upgrade path for > The key problem here is "significant portion of users". We have no idea how > many Fedora users actually use ste

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 08:16, Benson Muite wrote: > > > > To me the 'best' fix would be a SIG focused on an i686 micro-OS which > > delivers the packages in a format which can be easily used by Steam. This > > means the people working on it are using Steam, and know what needs to be > > tested to

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

* Neal Gompa: > So my semi-naive interpretation of the problem here is that glibc is > special in that it doesn't provide any support for real-time tracing > or profiling. I'm not sure that justifies removing this flag globally, > as there are plenty of middleware stacks that do their own thing or

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Аўт, 24 чэр 2025, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:40:55AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: == Upgrade/compatibility impact == * Directory server instances already using lmdb as database are not impacted. (typically those created with Fedora 40 and after) * freeip

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:07 PM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > > Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_support > Discussion thread - > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-drop-i686-support-system-wide/156324 Note that this was mis-tagged (both

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:17:18PM +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 11:43 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > We currently use -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer on various architectures. > > I think we should remove it because it does not work as expected. > > > > Obviously, this does no

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 11:43 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > We currently use -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer on various architectures. > I think we should remove it because it does not work as expected. > > Obviously, this does not work for many glibc string functions because > they use hand-written a

Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2025-06-24)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org on Matrix. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2025-06-24 17:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 11:41:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > The reason is what GCC calls shrink-wrapping. It's related to this old > > optimization: > > Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure calls > > https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/53990.53999 > >

F43 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_support Discussion thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-drop-i686-support-system-wide/156324 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process

Re: Remove -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from build flags

* Daniel P. Berrangé: >> Given how pervasive this effect is and that no problems have been >> reported so far, I think we can drop -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from >> the build flags. >> >> Thoughts? > > I recall the previous discussion around frame pointers was almost > exclusively around the m

Re: F43 Change Proposal: 389_Directory_Server_3.2.0 (self-contained)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:40:55AM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > * Directory server instances already using lmdb as database are not > impacted. (typically those created with Fedora 40 and after) > * freeipa is not impacted because it already

Unannounced soname bump: graphviz-libs

graphviz-13.0.1-1.fc43 - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-09c5f7c01d - bumped the sonames of three libraries, libcdt, libcgraph, and libgvc. soname bumps are supposed to be announced on devel@ and to maintainers of dependent packages - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/P