mingw32 directories, possible bug?

[Bill Cunningham]

I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these 
directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor 
checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is 
x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.

Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale 
directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf 
said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very 
odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at 
root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices 
this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can 
check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C 
Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type things.

B

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/31/22 17:56, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>  I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these 
>  directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor 
>  checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is 
>  x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
>  
>  Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale 
>  directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf 
>  said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very 
>  odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at 
>  root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices 
>  this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can 
>  check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C 
>  Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type things.
Which directories are you seeing as not owned?  Other than the specific 
.mo localization files, everything is owned by mingw64-filesystem.

[Bill C]

Ok they are /usr/i686-w64-mingw32 and the same only with x86_64-mingw32 and
such. I used rpm -qa | grep mingw and got nothing. So there's no package
installed on my system called "mingw" anything. Possibly ming is installed
though.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 9:21 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt; wrote:

>  On 12/31/22 17:56, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>  > I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these
>  > directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor
>  > checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is
>  > x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
>  >
>  > Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale
>  > directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf
>  > said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very
>  > odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at
>  > root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices
>  > this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can
>  > check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C
>  > Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type
>  things.
>
>  Which directories are you seeing as not owned?  Other than the specific
>  .mo localization files, everything is owned by mingw64-filesystem.
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

[Samuel Sieb]

On 12/31/22 18:47, Bill C wrote:
>  Ok they are /usr/i686-w64-mingw32 and the same only with
> x86_64-mingw32 
>  and such. I used rpm -qa | grep mingw and got nothing. So there's no 
>  package installed on my system called "mingw" anything. Possibly ming is 
>  installed though.
>  
>  On Sat, Dec 31, 2022, 9:21 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net 
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
>      On 12/31/22 17:56, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>       > I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these
>       > directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor
>       > checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and
>      another is
>       > x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
>       >
>       > Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale
>       > directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on.
>      rpm -qf
>       > said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this
>      very
>       > odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at
>       > root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else
>      notices
>       > this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it.
>      I can
>       > check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C
>       > Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development
>      type things.
>  
>      Which directories are you seeing as not owned?  Other than the specific
>      .mo localization files, everything is owned by mingw64-filesystem. 
It's likely that the localization files don't bring in the filesystem 
package.
Run "find /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 -name '*.mo'" and then "rpm
-q" on the 
files it finds.

[George N. White III]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:58 PM Bill Cunningham <bill.cu1234(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:

>  I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these
>  directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor
>  checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is
>  x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
>  
I maintain a package that originated on SGI IRIX64 and now builds on
linux, macOS, and even windows.  For windows I've used Cygwin64, but
with WSL2, fewer users have Cygwin, so I ported the package to mingw64,
which has the advantages that there are cross compilers on linux which are
used by the R-project (there is considerable overlap in the libraries used
by R and my project).

On my Fedora box:

$ doas dnf provides /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
Last metadata expiration check: 2:18:06 ago on Sun Jan  1 10:52:54 2023.
mingw32-filesystem-141-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base filesystem
and environment for the win32 target
Repo        : fedora
Matched from:
Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32

mingw32-filesystem-143-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base filesystem
and environment for the win32 target
Repo        : updates
Matched from:
Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32


>  Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale
>  directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf
>  said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very
>  odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at
>  root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices
>  this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can
>  check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C
>  Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type things.
>
>  
-- 
George N. White III

[Bill C]

So is it ok to remove these directories? Or the rpms? I don't use mingw at
all.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2023, 12:48 PM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:58 PM Bill Cunningham
> <bill.cu1234(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>
> > I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these
> > directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor
> > checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is
> > x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
> >
>
>  I maintain a package that originated on SGI IRIX64 and now builds on
>  linux, macOS, and even windows.  For windows I've used Cygwin64, but
>  with WSL2, fewer users have Cygwin, so I ported the package to mingw64,
>  which has the advantages that there are cross compilers on linux which are
>  used by the R-project (there is considerable overlap in the libraries used
>  by R and my project).
>
>  On my Fedora box:
>
>  $ doas dnf provides /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>  Last metadata expiration check: 2:18:06 ago on Sun Jan  1 10:52:54 2023.
>  mingw32-filesystem-141-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base
>  filesystem and environment for the win32 target
>  Repo        : fedora
>  Matched from:
>  Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>
>  mingw32-filesystem-143-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base
>  filesystem and environment for the win32 target
>  Repo        : updates
>  Matched from:
>  Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>
>
> >
> > Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale
> > directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf
> > said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very
> > odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at
> > root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices
> > this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can
> > check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C
> > Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type
> things.
> >
> >
>  --
>  George N. White III
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

[Bill C]

I will check this out. Thanks. Rpm -qa |grep mingw32 returned nothing.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2023, 12:48 PM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 9:58 PM Bill Cunningham
> <bill.cu1234(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>
> > I reinstalled my system and one reason was to take a look at these
> > directories that are odd. I choose minimal install and no hypervisor
> > checkbox. In /usr is two directories one is i686-mingw32- and another is
> > x86_64-mingw32- or so directories.
> >
>
>  I maintain a package that originated on SGI IRIX64 and now builds on
>  linux, macOS, and even windows.  For windows I've used Cygwin64, but
>  with WSL2, fewer users have Cygwin, so I ported the package to mingw64,
>  which has the advantages that there are cross compilers on linux which are
>  used by the R-project (there is considerable overlap in the libraries used
>  by R and my project).
>
>  On my Fedora box:
>
>  $ doas dnf provides /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>  Last metadata expiration check: 2:18:06 ago on Sun Jan  1 10:52:54 2023.
>  mingw32-filesystem-141-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base
>  filesystem and environment for the win32 target
>  Repo        : fedora
>  Matched from:
>  Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>
>  mingw32-filesystem-143-1.fc37.noarch : MinGW cross compiler base
>  filesystem and environment for the win32 target
>  Repo        : updates
>  Matched from:
>  Filename    : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32
>
>
> >
> > Now inside these is a directory called sys-root and inside a Locale
> > directory an directories for languages such as 'ca' and so on. rpm -qf
> > said these directories were not owned by any package. I find this very
> > odd myself. This was not present in f36. Only the 'afs' directory at
> > root and I know it is supposed to be there. IDK if anyone else notices
> > this or not. Not owned by anything. Maybe my tweaks have done it. I can
> > check if there is any mingw packages installed I simply choose 'C
> > Development tools' and add 'indent'. All I do for development type
> things.
> >
> >
>  --
>  George N. White III
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

Hi.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 13:03:26 -0500 Bill C wrote:

>  So is it ok to remove these directories? Or the rpms? I don't use
> mingw at
>  all. 
Directly the directories no: the rpms yes (but see below), but this is small:
around 600K each on my system.

To identify the related rpms, run for example:

  find /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 -type f | xargs rpm -qf | sort -u

On my system this gives:

  gvnc-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
  gvncpulse-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
  libosinfo-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64
  libvirt-glib-4.0.0-6.fc37.x86_64
  osinfo-db-tools-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64

If you have osinfo-db-tools installed beware, removing it will remove (even
with: dnf --noautoremove):

  gnome-boxes
  gnome-classic-session
  gnome-photos
  libosinfo
  nautilus
  tracker-miners

Check first if you are using either gnome-classic and/or nautilus.

-- 
francis

[Bill C]

I don't have any gui systems installed, it just looks like clutter to me
these directories. I don't use mingw, but, something else might
 That's the thing. I will try this.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2023, 1:42 PM <Francis.Montagnac(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote:

>  Hi.
>
>  On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 13:03:26 -0500 Bill C wrote:
>
>  > So is it ok to remove these directories? Or the rpms? I don't use mingw
>  at
>  > all.
>
>  Directly the directories no: the rpms yes (but see below), but this is
>  small:
>  around 600K each on my system.
>
>  To identify the related rpms, run for example:
>
>    find /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 -type f | xargs rpm -qf | sort -u
>
>  On my system this gives:
>
>    gvnc-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
>    gvncpulse-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
>    libosinfo-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64
>    libvirt-glib-4.0.0-6.fc37.x86_64
>    osinfo-db-tools-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64
>
>  If you have osinfo-db-tools installed beware, removing it will remove (even
>  with: dnf --noautoremove):
>
>    gnome-boxes
>    gnome-classic-session
>    gnome-photos
>    libosinfo
>    nautilus
>    tracker-miners
>
>  Check first if you are using either gnome-classic and/or nautilus.
>
>  --
>  francis
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

[Bill C]

Osinfo-db-tools and libosinfo are listed. IDK what they are for, but that
is what rpm says. No other rpms listed.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2023, 1:42 PM <Francis.Montagnac(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote:

>  Hi.
>
>  On Sun, 01 Jan 2023 13:03:26 -0500 Bill C wrote:
>
>  > So is it ok to remove these directories? Or the rpms? I don't use mingw
>  at
>  > all.
>
>  Directly the directories no: the rpms yes (but see below), but this is
>  small:
>  around 600K each on my system.
>
>  To identify the related rpms, run for example:
>
>    find /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 -type f | xargs rpm -qf | sort -u
>
>  On my system this gives:
>
>    gvnc-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
>    gvncpulse-1.3.0-5.fc37.x86_64
>    libosinfo-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64
>    libvirt-glib-4.0.0-6.fc37.x86_64
>    osinfo-db-tools-1.10.0-4.fc37.x86_64
>
>  If you have osinfo-db-tools installed beware, removing it will remove (even
>  with: dnf --noautoremove):
>
>    gnome-boxes
>    gnome-classic-session
>    gnome-photos
>    libosinfo
>    nautilus
>    tracker-miners
>
>  Check first if you are using either gnome-classic and/or nautilus.
>
>  --
>  francis
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  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/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>

[Jonathan Billings]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:02:11PM -0500, Bill C wrote:
>  Osinfo-db-tools and libosinfo are listed. IDK what they are for, but
> that
>  is what rpm says. No other rpms listed. 
They're used as a dependency for some virtualization packages, but the
issue is unrelated to the role of those packages.

I think that the existence of the files and directories in
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/ and /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/ are a bug in
several packages that have recently started building mingw subpackages
(which is where those files are *supposed* to go).  I'm going to
follow-up on the devel list where there was a thread about this topic
last August.  If needed, I'll file a bug against each package.

In the mean time, you can ignore /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/ and
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/.  Hopefully, the packages will get updated
and the directories will disappear. 

-- 
Jonathan Billings <billings(a)negate.org&gt;

[Bill Cunningham]

On 1/1/2023 3:55 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>  On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 03:02:11PM -0500, Bill C wrote:
> > Osinfo-db-tools and libosinfo are listed. IDK what they are for, but that
> > is what rpm says. No other rpms listed.
>  They're used as a dependency for some virtualization packages, but the
>  issue is unrelated to the role of those packages.
>
>  I think that the existence of the files and directories in
>  /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/ and /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/ are a bug in
>  several packages that have recently started building mingw subpackages
>  (which is where those files are *supposed* to go).  I'm going to
>  follow-up on the devel list where there was a thread about this topic
>  last August.  If needed, I'll file a bug against each package.
>
>  In the mean time, you can ignore /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/ and
>  /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/.  Hopefully, the packages will get updated
>  and the directories will disappear. 
The one os*-db package is very recent. From Nov or Dec.

B

[Jonathan Billings]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 04:37:06PM -0500, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>  The one os*-db package is very recent. From Nov or Dec. 
Yes, but the commit to also build mingw packages is from late August.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/osinfo-db/c/09fa4cadee207b2cb6a9c50441...

-- 
Jonathan Billings <billings(a)negate.org&gt;