On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx > > > <mailto:ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 at 12:10, Daniel P. Berrangé > > > <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
