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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:24 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Reading through the feedback, wouldn't it be better to take a second > look on the previous change: > > > Dne 24. 06. 25 v 12:02 Aoife Moloney via devel-announce napsal(a): > > Since Fedora 37, leaf packages (i.e. packages that are not depend

Re: F44 Change Proposal: Drop i686 support (system wide)

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:14 AM Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > On 6/25/25 9:36 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > I hate to be pessimistic but I think it is premature to say it is "solved" > > until > > users use the new Wow64 mode. I'm trying to get the merge in this week. > > Rawhide, 10.4-5, i

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:24 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > Reading through the feedback, wouldn't it be better to take a second > > look on the previous change: > > > > > > Dne 24. 06. 25 v 12:02 Aoife Moloney via devel-announce n

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:09 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:24 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > Reading through the feedback, wouldn't it be better to take a second > > > look on the previous chang

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

Reading through the feedback, wouldn't it be better to take a second look on the previous change: Dne 24. 06. 25 v 12:02 Aoife Moloney via devel-announce napsal(a): Since Fedora 37, leaf packages (i.e. packages that are not depended on by other packages) can simply [https://fedoraproject.org/w

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

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 18:15, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 23:58 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:54:21PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 22:09 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > i686-linux is one of the few primary architectu

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

> > I think we could actually remove all 32-bit libraries *not* required by > > Steam for Fedora *43*. That should probably be uncontroversial, right? > If that included the above packages and their dependencies then I'd be > fine with that. I don't think this is a solution, cause the list of the

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

On Срд, 25 чэр 2025, Oron Peled wrote: Hi, I've played with LDIF export/import years before IPA, but there's still big knowledge gap. A SOHO installation is not rare and we need a detailed howto for in-place migration (with obvious downtime) This documentation is more critical because upstream

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

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:14:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 20:55, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 08:45:33PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 16:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > > > And there is another aspect,

Re: cross building i686 idea

* Chris Adams: > Once upon a time, David Airlie said: >> Does anyone know if it's possible to install i686 build deps into an >> x86-64 build? >> >> I was going to try and see what building a mesa package that produced >> a 32-bit subpackage, but >> >> BuildRequires: llvm-devel.i686 doesn't see

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20250626.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20250625.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20250626.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 70 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 9.70 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

Re: Interesting Phoronix comment about Xlibre (X11Libre) on Asahi

On 6/26/25 1:36 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Hi, > > in the discussion about my now withdrawn change proposal, I found this > comment (by someone going by "PASRC") interesting: > > https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/x-org-drm/1555670-fedora-s-fesco-to-decid

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

On Wednesday, 25 June 2025 at 16:19, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > With Wine solved, it sounds like Steam is the only remaining concern. It is not. There are tons of Linux-native games, e.g. from GOG (gog.com) that people like myself have purchased and want to play. Many of them were built as 32-b

Fedora eln compose report: 20250627.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-eln-20250626.n.0 NEW: Fedora-eln-20250627.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 27 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:1.59 MiB Size of

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:09 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:24 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > > > Reading through the f

Re: cross building i686 idea

> Cross-compiling from x86_64 will likely only avoid to build a i686 > compiler. It's worth a try though. > > At least building a small set of i686 packages will likely be the way > to go. Even if the packages list is moving, it will still be easier to > maintain. Especially if i686 is using a redu

ELN SIG meeting minutes for 26 Jun '25

Text Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-06-26/eln.2025-06-26-19.01.log.txt HTML Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-06-26/eln.2025-06-26-19.01.log.html Text Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matri

Re: Interesting Phoronix comment about Xlibre (X11Libre) on Asahi

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 19:20, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Leigh Scott wrote: > > Are you going to submit x11libre for package review without the obsoletes > > and provides? > > Currently, I am rather thinking of just putting up a Copr, with > Obsoletes/Provides for seamless migration, but on

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 03:46:44PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Question: How are said containers to be constructed (much less > > maintained) when working within the Fedora/RHEL ecosystem? > > Thanks to Debian multi-arch it is possible to build cross envs for > many archs, from any Linux

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

> Notably, *both* of your examples are already impossible because > you can't install glib2.i686 on an x86_64 system anymore due to > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258600. The bug is about a conflict in -devel packages. Installing base glib2.x86_64 and glib2.i686 packages is totall

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

On Thu, Jun 26 2025 at 10:36:51 AM -05:00:00, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Notably, *both* of your examples are already impossible because you can't install glib2.i686 on an x86_64 system anymore due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258600. This is theoretically fixable, if somebody

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 08:50:48AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Yes, I can understand the benefit of testing 64 vs 32 bit in general, > as that's a frequent source of bugs in many apps still, alongside > big endian vs little endian, which s390x gives coverage of. > > Would containers mitigat

Re: cross building i686 idea

* Mark Wielaard: > Hi Florian, > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:02:51AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Chris Adams: >> > Once upon a time, David Airlie said: >> >> Does anyone know if it's possible to install i686 build deps into an >> >> x86-64 build? >> >> >> >> I was going to try and see wha

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

Hi all, FYI: I created a pull request for the migration how to in https://github.com/389ds/389ds.github.io/pull/21 Feel free to comment on it. Most point mentioned by Oron should be covered except: * SOHO specific information: Because I do not know how 389 ds is deployed in such environment bu

Re: cross building i686 idea

Hi Florian, On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:02:51AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Chris Adams: > > Once upon a time, David Airlie said: > >> Does anyone know if it's possible to install i686 build deps into an > >> x86-64 build? > >> > >> I was going to try and see what building a mesa package tha

Re: cross building i686 idea

Le jeu. 26 juin 2025 à 03:59, David Airlie a écrit : > > Does anyone know if it's possible to install i686 build deps into an > x86-64 build? > > I was going to try and see what building a mesa package that produced > a 32-bit subpackage, but > > BuildRequires: llvm-devel.i686 doesn't seem to work

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 09:22:58AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 08:50:48AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Yes, I can understand the benefit of testing 64 vs 32 bit in general, > > as that's a frequent source of bugs in many apps still, alongside > > big endian vs lit

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

On Thu, Jun 26 2025 at 09:37:37 AM +02:00:00, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski via devel wrote: It is not. There are tons of Linux-native games, e.g. from GOG (gog.com) that people like myself have purchased and want to play. Many of them were built as 32-bit x86 only and use an old build of the

Re: cross building i686 idea

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 01:10:39PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > And I think that's still the right way to do it. Today, glibc32 only > provides what GCC needs to build its -m32 bits, it's not a generally > useful 32-bit development or execution environment. I'd like to correct that, glibc32 (wh

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Remove DNF modularity support from Anaconda (system-wide)

> Wiki - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_DNF_modularity_support_from_Anaconda > Without this change the > [[Changes/Switch_Anaconda_installer_to_DNF5|migration to DNF 5]] will > be more troublesome as DNF 5 is missing the requested API right now. Is there a plan to also drop the c

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

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:07:11AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 03:46:44PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Question: How are said containers to be constructed (much less > > > maintained) when working within the Fedora/RHEL ecosystem? > > > > Thanks to Debian mult

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

Hi. I read this thread yesterday and also read about a post on slashdot: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/25/06/25/2042242/bazzite-would-shut-down-if-fedora-goes-ahead-with-removing-32-bit : If Fedora drops 32-bit support, the gaming-focused Bazzite project would be > forced to shut down >

Re: Interesting Phoronix comment about Xlibre (X11Libre) on Asahi

Erico Nunes wrote: > This is on the Asahi FAQ, so I think Asahi in particular is not going to > be a convincing argument and use case: > https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/faq/#i-am-having-performancetearingfeature-issues-on-xorg But that is exactly what the user claims X(11)libre fixed for them.

Re: Interesting Phoronix comment about Xlibre (X11Libre) on Asahi

Leigh Scott wrote: > Are you going to submit x11libre for package review without the obsoletes > and provides? Currently, I am rather thinking of just putting up a Copr, with Obsoletes/Provides for seamless migration, but one has to dnf copr enable the Copr to opt in to begin with. Shipping par

Re: Interesting Phoronix comment about Xlibre (X11Libre) on Asahi

On 2025-06-26 11:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Erico Nunes wrote: This is on the Asahi FAQ, so I think Asahi in particular is not going to be a convincing argument and use case: https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/faq/#i-am-having-performancetearingfeature-issues-on-xorg But that is exact

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

On 2025-06-24 22:02, Florian Weimer wrote: Are you suggesting to move RHEL 11 development away from Fedora/ELN to CentOS Stream? Wouldn't that be implied by this approach? Not at all. My point was that if you want a platform to run experiments, the CentOS ISA SIG seems like a better fit, as i