releng

#11895 ELN: re-examine BuildWithDNF5 post-branching
Closed: upstream by kevin. Opened by yselkowitz.

Closed: upstream
Reopen Issue
  • Describe the issue
    This evening, gcc-14.0.1-0.1 FTBFS on x86_64 only in both rawhide and ELN with the following error in root.log:
DEBUG util.py:461:  No match for argument: /lib/libc.so.6
DEBUG util.py:461:  No match for argument: /usr/lib/libc.so
DEBUG util.py:461:  No match for argument: /usr/lib64/libc.so

These build requirements are practically specific to x86_64:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gcc/blob/rawhide/f/gcc.spec#_211

@kevin and I discussed this, and BuildWithDNF5 was presumed to be the culprit. However, it's not as simple as file dependencies not working, because in other packages they appear to be so. Nevertheless, in the interest of unbreaking the ELN buildroot, mock.package_manager was set to dnf instead of inheriting dnf5 from rawhide. This allowed the gcc build to proceed, which would seemingly confirm that BuildWithDNF5 is somehow the issue.

To avoid unnecessary issues between now and f40/c10s branching, we are requesting to continue to use eln for now, but post-branching, we would like to re-examine this with the goal of using dnf5 in preparation for RHEL 11.

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
    Not before F40 branches, so sometime mid-to-late February at the earliest.

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
    ELN will diverge from rawhide, and rely on an eventually unmaintained package manager in the buildroot.

/cc @sgallagh

Perhaps Mock needs to be adjusted to turn file lists back on for DNF 5.

However, it's not as simple as file dependencies not working, because in other packages they appear to be so.

The difference is documented in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_dependencies

Reamingin packages are tracked in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180842

(I am aware you commented there, but others might not be aware of the ticket.)

Should this be moved over to a eln tracker? I don't think there's anything for releng to do here aside from adjusting the tag if desired?

Oh, I missed this one, related RHBZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180842

We tried to do something about file-lists here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ewjPOzoJJ5wFbtsIosD_qoh7wD_GkbNgh6MMfIHsrks/edit#gid=0
Edited by praiskup

To avoid unnecessary issues between now and f40/c10s branching, we are requesting to continue to use eln for now, but post-branching, we would like to re-examine this with the goal of using dnf5 in preparation for RHEL 11.

We did not plan ELN honestly, thank you for touching this topic. But now when we
did this for Rawhide, switching ELN should be easy anytime we decide doing so.

For local builds and Fedora Copr builds:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/1291

Request for ELN coordination: https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/175

Please re-open if you need any changes from releng. Otherwise eln folks can discuss in the other ticket. ;)

Metadata Update from @kevin:
- Issue close_status updated to: upstream
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.