Self Introduction: Andreas Vögele
by Andreas Vögele
Hello Fedora developers,
I'm Andreas from Stuttgart in Germany. I'm a system administrator and
software developer, who moved his computers to Fedora about a year ago.
I've written a handful of Perl modules that I package at the Open Build
Service and Copr. I'd like to maintain some of these modules directly in
Fedora. In the past, I maintained ports of other software at
SlackBuilds.org and OpenBSD. Occasionally, I contribute patches to free
software projects. I enjoy programming in C, Perl and recently Kotlin.
1 day, 1 hour
RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?
by Matthew Miller
Hi all! I just got back from Open Source Summit, several of the talks I
found interesting were on RISC-V -- a high-level one about the
organizational structure, and Drew Fustini's more technical talk.
In that, he noted that there's a Fedora build *, but it isn't an official
Fedora arch. As I understand it, the major infrastructure blocker is simply
that there isn't server-class hardware (let alone hardware that will build
fast enough that it isn't a frustrating bottleneck).
So, one question is: if we used, say, ARM or x86_64 Amazon cloud instances
as builders, could we build fast enough under QEMU emulation to work? We
have a nice early advantage, but if we don't keep moving, we'll lose that.
But beyond that: What other things might be limits? Are there key bits of
the distro which don't build yet? Is there a big enough risc-v team to
respond to arch-specific build failures? And, do we have enough people to do
QA around release time?
* see http://fedora.riscv.rocks/koji/
Fedora Project Leader
5 days, 6 hours
Conflicting build-ids in nekovm and haxe
by Andy Li
Since haxe-4.1.3-4 and nekovm-2.3.0-4, both nekovm and haxe packages contains "/usr/lib/.build-id/b0/aed4ddf2d45372bcc79d5e95d2834f5045c09c".
The nekovm one is a symlink to "/usr/bin/neko". The haxe one to "/usr/bin/haxelib".
Both the neko and haxelib binaries are built with libneko, with a nearly identical main.c with the only difference of the present of neko bytecode embedded as a byte array (neko: the byte array is null; haxelib: the byte array is the haxelib neko bytecode).
I'm not sure how to resolve it.
4 weeks, 1 day
can't install package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit
by Martin Gansser
when trying to install pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit i get this error message:
# dnf -y install pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit
Last metadata expiration check: 1:39:52 ago on Thu Dec 31 14:10:39 2020.
Problem: problem with installed package jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.13-4.fc33.i686 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- conflicting requests
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.15-2.fc33.i686 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.13-4.fc33.x86_64 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.15-2.fc33.x86_64 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
How can i fix this ?
2 months, 3 weeks
Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages
by Sandro Mani
Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm
planning to start merging native and mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
looking at these packages where I maintain both variants:
I'm performing test builds here . Once I've got them all building
there, if there are no objections, I plan to push to F37 and retire all
the corresponding mingw repos.
2 months, 4 weeks
FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for
by David Cantrell
Our most recent FESCo meeting involved discussing the proposal to drop i686
builds of jdk8,11,17 from Fedora 37 onward. The topic quickly changed to the
larger question of "what do people use i686 packages for?"
Rather than guess, we wanted to ask the community what you use i686 packages
for in Fedora. There are no wrong answers here. We are seeking information.
Why? Since the removal of the i686 kernel in Fedora, we want to reduce the
number of i686 packages provided in the repo. As time marches on, the ability
to build a lot of things for i686 becomes unrealistic or even impossible.
Remember it goes beyond providing builds...providing support, bug fixes, and
security fixes for those packages too. Maybe some things using i686 packages
now can move to x86_64 packages. We do not know yet, but a goal is to figure
out what packages, if anything, can drop their i686 builds.
NOTE: Nothing is changing now. We are in an information gathering phase.
If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread.
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com>
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
4 months, 2 weeks
"rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades
by Chris Murphy
Most all Fedora variants (except Cloud) have a GRUB menu entry
containing the word "rescue". This kernel+initramfs pair are never
updated for the life of a Fedora installation. And they quickly become
stale as a Fedora installation ages. This kernel's modules are
eventually deleted, and if selected at boot time, the typical user
experience is a dracut shell.
(skip this section if you know how it works)
During a new installation, a single kernel version is installed. e.g.
vmlinuz-5.17.0-0.rc4.96.fc36.x86_64 which is then duplicated as e.g.
Each of those (identical) kernels has an initramfs file:
The sole difference is the first one is a smaller host-only initramfs,
the second one is a larger no host-only initramfs created with `dracut
-N`. The bigger one just contains a bunch of extra kernel modules and
dracut scripts, ostensibly to make it more likely to boot a system
with some change in hardware that the host-only initramfs doesn't
contain. The size of this rescue initramfs is around 100 MiB, with the
common day to day "host only" initramfs being around 33 MiB. 
As the system is updated, additional kernel versions are installed.
dnf.conf contains installonly_limit=3, which results in a maximum of
three kernel versions being installed at a time. Once a fourth kernel
is installed, the first kernel and its modules are removed from
/usr/lib/modules. The rescue kernel+initramfs pair are never updated
or upgraded, even during system upgrades.
This has been discussed by the Workstation working group  but since
this functionality is present in all of Fedora, we're moving the
discussion for greater visibility.
There's two separate complaints, if you will: (a) that the
kernel+initramfs pair are never update or upgraded for the life of the
installation; and (b) that even during one release cycle, the user
experience when booting the rescue entry, changes, i.e. when the
matching /usr/lib/modules for the rescue entry are present early on,
you do get a full runtime behavior, you will get to a graphical
environment. But then once the version matched /usr/lib/modules are
removed, you get a completely different behavior when booting the
An important note from that ticket from Justin Forbes, the Fedora
kernel maintainer: " Remember, the only real purpose of the rescue
kernel is to get your system out of something completely unusable. It
isn't meant to be a full runtime."
* Considering the very narrow purpose of the entry, maybe the current
behavior is adequate?
* Does the rescue entry reliably get users to a dracut prompt, rather
than indefinite hang? I don't know whether it does.
* Is there any way to improve the situation without increasing the
risk that the rescue entry becomes totally non-functional?
* The chosen kernel version needs to be based on one that is known
to boot. Currently we know the kernel+initramfs pair work because it's
the same version used to boot the installation media when doing the
initial provisioning. We don't actually know an updated replacement
"no host-only" initramfs will work until it's tried. Is it possible to
automate this? And is it worth the risk, or even figuring out how to
assess the risk?
* At Flock 2021, Zbyszek proposed "Building Initrd Images from
RPMs" to reduce the complexity of building initramfs, maybe there's a
role for it here? More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GATg_bqmASc
* What happens if we accept some scope creep, and go for many
improvements that make the extra work worth it?
* What about the unsigned nature of the initramfs? Should we be
creating initramfs's in Fedora infra and signing them?
* Stuff a graphical rescue environment into the initramfs? (This
might be ten leaps too far, but it's intended to encourage thinking
with a vivid imagination.)
 both values from a recent Fedora 36 Workstation installation
Orphaned X11 packages
by Adam Jackson
The following packages, previously owned by xgl-maint, are now up for grabs:
Upstream development on all of these is pretty much nil, so if you're
serious about picking up any of these you may also wish to take on the
5 months, 1 week