The Fedora 45 Sausage Factory

(supakeen.com)

115 points | by 6581 10 hours ago

6 comments

  • cube00 7 hours ago

    This kind of end to end documentation is invaluable when you're trying to troubleshoot.

    I had a service complaining about the root file permissions which changed between Fedora versions [1]. I was never able to figure out what produced the file system image but thanks so this guide I know where to start looking now.

    [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2402944#c1

    • 28304283409234 2 hours ago

      Meanwhile the bluewashing seems to be keeping a steady pace. https://techrights.org/n/2026/07/22/IBM_is_Not_Done_Destroyi...

      • TazeTSchnitzel 27 minutes ago

        Techrights are hard to take seriously, the site's author has such a bad case of that polemic tendency that he lost a libel case because he wouldn't stop harassing someone (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063).

        • setopt 1 hour ago

          I haven’t followed the news. Sounds like IBM is bad news for Fedora long term?

          • trentor 30 minutes ago

            I don't want to be hyper critical but was there ever a project that got better after being acquired by IBM?

        • hangrybear666 4 hours ago

          So as a relatively fresh Fedora user (2024) who just sold their Windows PC (2025) and is in love with the OS, where would be a good place to look for areas to contribute in? Is there a place where Fedora maintainers write down what parts of the pipeline are in need of volunteers?

        • mdlxxv 8 hours ago
          • hnmu4c5zar 2 hours ago

            Been thinking about this for years

            • WesolyKubeczek 4 hours ago

              > Every build starts from a clean room. You can never get a different result because someone installed something on the builder last week.

              At least 6 years ago, this was not entirely true: a package happened to build only because, by happy accident, the builder had a dependency installed by something else. Since the dependency was not in its Build-Requires:, the build would fail in COPR, which really used a clean room. A case of being saved by the alphabetic order, I guess?

              Maybe they have updated Koji since.

              • supakeen 4 hours ago

                Mmm, COPR and Koji I think use the same mock configs but someone else would have to confirm that :)

                It's definitely possible that one of a packages build dependencies pulls in something that a package /should/ depend on and then when it drops it suddenly the build fails. That's why I think we mostly want 'autogenerated' BuildRequires nowadays that are generated based on the upstream source or packaging format to make that less of a figuring out excercise.