Just a quick headsup for users following Fedora 29, the
dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 build is missing the systemd dbus.service
file, breaking almost everything.
Instead it contains a dbus-daemon.service file, but the
dbus.socket file expects a matching dbus.service, not
So either hold of on applying updates until this is fixed
or exclude dbus.
I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
have from day one.
I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.
A bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and
until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra steps
between git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we
ship as apt is in reality apt-rpm.
It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I needed and
after a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I save not
having to deal with needless extra hoops.
In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages that
I'm now submitting for review:
I need more than reviews here.
Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines  (also tried with
the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:
CC: perl-sig did not match anything
Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I
could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if
something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful.
Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper.
The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up
the procedure for that to happen. I understand that when someone sees
they should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's
helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm) , but apt-rpm is
dead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt.
I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to find
help for the reviews and co-maintainership. The packaging does nothing
fancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy
to put together. And of course I would be happy to help with reviews
too in exchange.
And thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better
than either sbuild or pdebuild that I barely have pain points left when it
comes to RPM packaging.
 I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for example
In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on
communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the
open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open
review requests. Some of these were opened in 2006.
The usual Bugzilla housekeeping (branching, EOL closure, etc) explicitly
excludes review request bugs. Having a large number of open, ancient review
requests isn't exactly harmful, but it's not very helpful either.
Before I make a proposal to FPC, I thought I'd open a conversation here.
What does a reasonable cleanup of review requests look like?
My initial thought is to close all review requests that were opened >2
years ago, to be performed at the EOL closure for each release.
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
writing to general devel list intentionally. No idea if all members of lxqt-sig list can read here, too and especially @zsun.
Is there any sense why @lxqt-sig is member of packaging for featherpad? LXQt SIG decided to have enki in the spin as the default editor. Featherpad is not part of LXQt upstream.
@lupinix Could you remove lxqt-sig from the members in pagure?
Question and (pre)proposal:
Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
default in Fedora 33, and the working group needs to pick something
I think it should be zram-generator. It's the most lightweight, can be
included by default distro wide. Without a configuration file, it
doesn't run. Thus, each edition/spin, and even the install
environment, can have their own configuration file, to setup it up
however they want, or not set it up.
I also suspect it's the only one that could be upstreamed to systemd
proper, and just included like many other generators.
Background story and references:
Fedora IoT enables swap-on-ZRAM by default for a long time, and have
no issues. Fedora Workstation WG has been evaluating it for some time,
and wants to enable it by default in Fedora 33. Prior discussions 
(Details will be in a future feature proposal.)
Swap is a basic function, and swap-on-ZRAM is an optimization of a
basic function. Basic things should be understandable by users,
without having different configuration files, and systemd units to
look for, depending on what edition/spin they use, or whether they're
booting installation media, or an installed system. It's confusing.
And they don't co-exist gracefully.
There are three implementations in Fedora . Installation media
(DVD, netinstall, Live) use Anaconda's when the install media is
booted; Live installations include it, but it's disabled. Fedora IoT
has its own variant enabled by default, similar in design and function
to Anaconda's, but differently named systemd unit, configuration file,
and bash scripts used by the systemd unit. There's nothing wrong with
these, but in my estimation they have no chance of being upstreamed to
And there's zram-generator. It works much like any other of the basic
generators for this sort of thing: the gpt-auto-generator, the
fstab-generator, and the cryptsetup-generator. I'm not sure who would
argue we need multiple implementations of these things, with separate
configuration files, in the same distribution.
In libvirt we recently deleted a driver for the legacy Xen toolstack.
This was shipped in a libvirt-daemon-driver-xen RPM.
I am able to add an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen < 4.3.0"
line to the libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl RPM, which gives clean
upgrade path for users.
If they have the libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo RPM installed
though that still breaks the upgrade.
How can I get the auto-generated libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl-debuginfo
RPM to have an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo < 4.3.0"
statement ? It seems impossible, meaning users with debuginfo have a
broken upgrade path. An unfortunate consequence of switching to seprate
-debuginfo per sub-RPM.
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
== Summary ==
Change format of the RPM database from Berkeley DB to a new Sqlite format.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:pmatilai| Panu Matilainen]] [[User:ffesti|Florian Festi]]
* Email: pmatilai(a)redhat.com ffesti(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
The current rpm database implementation is based on Berkeley DB 5.x, a
version which is unmaintained upstream for several years now. Berkeley
DB 6.x is license incompatible so moving to that is not an option. In
addition, the existing rpmdb implementation is notoriously unreliable
as it's not transactional and has no other means to detect
Changing to a more sustainable database implementation is long
overdue. We propose to change the default rpmdb format to the new
sqlite based implementation. Support for current BDB format will be
retained in Fedora 33, and phased out to read-only support in Fedora
== Benefit to Fedora ==
* A far more robust rpm database implementation
* Getting rid of Berkeley DB dependency in one of the core components
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** Once [[Changes/RPM-4.16|RPM 4.16]] lands and passes initial
shakedown, change the default rpmdb configuration to sqlite
** Address any bugs and issues in the database backend found by wider
** Help other developers to address Berkeley DB dependencies
* Other developers:
** Test for hidden Berkeley DB dependencies in other software, address
them as found and needed
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9308 #9308]
* Policies and guidelines: Policies and guidelines are not affected
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
=== Upgrading ===
* Ability to upgrade is not affected
* After upgrade completes, manual action (rpmdb --rebuilddb) will
probably be needed to convert to sqlite. Alternatively user can change
configuration to stay on BDB.
=== Compatibility ===
* Container/chroot use-cases will be affected: older rpm versions will
be unable to query/manipulate the rpmdb from outside the chroot
* Koji/COPR may need to override the database format (back to) BDB for
the time being
== How To Test ==
* Rpmdb gets thoroughly exercised as a matter of normal system
operation, performing installs, updates, package builds etc
* Of specific interest here is torture testing: forcibly killing rpm
in various stages of execution - database should stay consistent and
operational (other system state is out of scope)
* Test database conversions from one backend to another (rpmdb
--rebuilddb --define "_db_backend <backend>")
== User Experience ==
* In normal operation, users should see little or no change
* Behavior in error situations is much more robust: forcibly killed
transaction no longer causes database inconsistency or corruption
== Dependencies ==
* This change depends on [[Changes/RPM-4.16|RPM 4.16]], support for
sqlite rpmdb is not present in older versions
* RPM will grow a new dependency on sqlite-libs
* Technically the rpmdb format is an internal implementation detail of
RPM and the data is only accessible through the librpm API, but some
software is making assumptions both about the format and/or in
particular, file naming. These are being tracked at
* Upgrade tooling could/should perform rpmdb rebuild at end, this
would be a good thing to do regardless of this change
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism:
** Revert the default database back to Berkeley DB backend in the
package. Running 'rpmdb --rebuilddb' on hosts is currently required to
actually convert the database, but means to automate conversion in
specific conditions is being discussed upstream.
** The rpm-team does not expect problems with the database backend
itself, but we are aware that postponing may be needed due to
infrastructure or other tooling not being ready, primarily due to
inability to access the database from older releases.
* Contingency deadline: Beta freeze
* Blocks release? Yes
== Documentation ==
* [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.16.0 | RPM 4.16 release notes]
== Release Notes ==
* After upgrading from an older release, rpm operations will issue
warnings about database backend configuration not matching what's on
disk. Users should run 'rpmdb --rebuilddb' at earliest opportunity, or
change configuration to stay on Berkeley DB backend (eg 'echo
%_db_backend bdb > /etc/rpm/macros.db')
* The details are subject to change, the database rebuild may be done
by upgrade tooling
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
the semiannual exercise is upon us. FESCo candidates must submit an
"interview" in which they answer a set of questions (but can also add whatever they want).
The question whether we should have a new set of questions needs to be answered.
Currently we have the following:
Mandatory Question #1: Describe some of the important technical issues
you foresee affecting the Fedora community. What insight do you bring
to these issues?
Mandatory Question #2: What objectives or goals should FESCo focus on
to help keep Fedora on the cutting edge of open source development?
Mandatory Question #3: What are the areas of the distribution and our
processes that, in your opinion, need improvement the most? Do you
have any ideas how FESCo would be able to help in those "trouble
Please answer with any proposals. If there is sufficient support for
change, I'll gather a list and submit this for some kind of poll
(details to be figured out...).