The Fedora 45 Sausage Factory

Posted by 6581 2 days ago

Counter155Comment39OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by cube00 2 days 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

Comment by mdlxxv 2 days ago

Truly a "Beefy Miracle".

https://web.archive.org/web/20230112002240/https://beefymira...

Comment by hangrybear666 2 days 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?

Comment by supakeen 2 days ago

There's a guide! It's here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/join/ (or: https://fedoramagazine.org/how-to-contribute-to-fedora/)

Personally I feel a good way to get involved is to test updates in bodhi for those packages you care about, or to take part in the process that happens around release time where we go through several freeze cycles and have 'blocker bugs' that need their fixes to be validated: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process

Comment by q8zd3 2 days ago

I would recommend to look at Fefora's infra "backlog": https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues

Comment by 28304283409234 2 days ago

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

Comment by setopt 2 days ago

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

Comment by trentor 2 days ago

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

Comment by xorcist 1 day ago

While probably true, I'm not sure how much Fedora can be owned really. We should give credit where credit is due though: IBM has, together with Intel, Red Hat, and a few others, been very supportive of the Linux ecosystem since early on. Their scalability work, their GPLing of code, and upstreaming of said code, did a lot for people to look at Linux seriously. There are obviously people inside IBM who understand this stuff. So there should be hope.

Comment by TazeTSchnitzel 2 days 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).

Comment by WesolyKubeczek 2 days 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.

Comment by supakeen 2 days 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.

Comment by hnmu4c5zar 2 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by einpoklum 2 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by lutoma 2 days ago

One of the best things to happen to the Linux ecosystem in a long time.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

The best example of suck, and that forced you to restart Linux machines after an update, something that was not the case before... you little ducklings...

https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/

https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Arguments_against...

Comment by jcastro 2 days ago

That's most of the entire planet using Linux.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

And social media and fast food...does not mean its good for you...

Comment by rogerrogerr 2 days ago

I’m out of the loop on this, not trying to ignite a holy war, but what’s the gist of the anti-systemd stance?

Comment by petee 2 days ago

Imho its not necessary for the average user, adding too much complexity.

For example, I tried to config gpsd to use another port, nothing would work; systemd quietly overrides gpsd's configfile and required additional systemd incantations to change what should have been easy. And the man pages are a mess

And journalctl makes me want to pull my hair out; just let me grep a regular file - discovering namespaces is a nightmare

Comment by c-hendricks 1 day ago

Personally I think moving away from the hodgepodge of scripts, giving a consistent interface for people to use, extend, etc, is kinda necessary for the average user to have a decent system. It can often be complex to make things simple.

I'm also not sure how systemd could override a config file, because systemd does not write the unit files on a system. Wouldn't that be on the maintainer, distro, or other methods of getting the unit file?

Comment by petee 1 day ago

It sets up the network for services, but it's been a minute since so I don't remember the specifics, just that I needed to make a new file in some deep folder to tell it to use a non-standard port.

To me its just more complexity, and not super consistent, which is fine for enterprise, or automation. I'm used to openbsd, regular shell init scripts go in /etc/rc.d, and my logs are in /var/log. Can't get much simpler than that, but i understand its limitations, and Linux is certainly more of a hodgepodge

Edit: found my notes, first was discovering the "gpsd" & "gpsd.socket" namespaces existence, then needing to do "systemd edit --full gpsd.socket" because without "--full" it makes an override file that didn't actually override anything...my note quality declined rapidly after that due to anger

Comment by shalg 2 days ago

It’s at odds with the philosophy of do one thing and do it well. Its monolithic feature set pushes out smaller contributors and leads to increased reliance on a singular package. This tends to self reinforce. I also use systemd in my current distro so not sure where I stand on this but it’s a fair concern.

Comment by oblio 1 day ago

Everything on modern OSes is at odds with the Unix philosophy ("do one thing well"), including *nix.

ls has more flags than a Soviet military parade.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

Before systemd I had Redhat machines with 3 to 4 years of uptime, and now you need to restart Linux after updates....while Windows people rarely and they laugh at you...

Comment by amlib 2 days ago

If you use the command line to do the update there is no need to reboot, however, the issues that the offline update is trying to solve still stands.

Some programs can crash when all their files are suddenly swapped for new ones. I've seen multiple linux systems bork themselves during an update because the update itself caused the desktop session to crash, which caused the update process to be interrupted just as it was modifying some crucial files, thus rendering the system unbootable.

Comment by miloshadzic 2 days ago

New thing bad

Comment by shalg 2 days ago

It’s 16 years old and just as old are the criticisms?????

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

Is that a technical argument for the excellence of Windows products? :-))

Comment by rwmj 2 days ago

Just use another distro without systemd, no one cares.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

People who dont care use Windows.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by dralley 2 days ago

The systemd init isn't half an operating system any more than the coreutils "ls" utility is half a userspace. The systemd project has many different components but they're independent, they are not all literally part of the init system.

Comment by einpoklum 2 days ago

You're the one who brought up init systems. Like you said, systemd is a huge project; an init system is just one of its components.

> he systemd project has many different components but they're independent

They _are_ dependent. It's one codebas, and even if you somehow separated it - you would still only have systemd-specific, systemd-dependent replacements for _actual_ independent components.

They all depend on systemd and won't work with anything else, nor on any other operating system either.

Comment by dralley 2 days ago

This is the post I responded to

>> The proof this site is misnamed is that a post criticizing systemd gets downvoted, probably by people who have never questioned why an [[ init system ]] needs to become half the operating system.

So no, I didn't bring it up.

I find the whole argument kind of dumb anyway. People talk about this as if it was a violation of the "Unix Philosophy" when Unix and BSD are developed even moreso in the same way - the init system is sitting in the same repo as the libc, the kernel, and the entire rest of the OS. Linux is alone amongst operating systems in making core system components swappable like to that degree in the first place. It's fine to like that kind of flexibility, but a bit silly to act as though that approach is fundamentally superior. If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice. Just quit whining about 99.9999% of the other software users on the planet not catering to it.

Comment by einpoklum 2 days ago

> If you want to use non-systemd tools, use a non-systemd distro, that is your choice.

No, it is not my choice, because I'm not talking about my PC at home, but rather what organizations use - commercial companies, universities, schools, NGOs etc. And also what users are taught to handle and work with.

But it's not even that: I want systemd to be _dropped_ as a default part of the main Linux distributions. I want only the people who explicitly prefer systemd, to use systemd, and not the rest.

As for the "dumb argument" etc. - what you're saying is that because the different BSD distros are monolithic, then not only should Linux become that way, but - all of the lower-level Linux userspace, above the kernel, should just be handed over to the benevolent oligarchy of the systemd people.

That's a bad idea, both in principle, and also in practice, due to the innumerable problematic design and implementation choices systemd has taken - which developers and sysadmins/power-users did not mandate, agree to or support.

Comment by c-hendricks 1 day ago

> No, it is not my choice, because I'm not talking about my PC at home, but rather what organizations use - commercial companies, universities, schools, NGOs etc

How much of a say do you have over the minutiae choices of various organizations anyways?

> I want only the people who explicitly prefer systemd, to use systemd, and not the rest

And some those people that prefer systemd happen to have a lot of influence on the choices for what init system a distro uses.

Maybe we could build something that lets us convert between different init systems to ease the maintenance burden. We'd need a structured format to start from, I wonder what options are out there...

Comment by temp0826 2 days ago

I think the systemd people state that it is more than an init system, maybe your expectation of it needs to be adjusted. "systemd is a software suite for system and service management on Linux built to unify service configuration and behavior across Linux distributions." One of the great things about Linux is that you can always choose a distro that fits your ideals (or whatever else).

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

[dead]

Comment by robmusial 2 days ago

It's probably being downvoted and flagged because it's off topic to the post and adds no substance which is against site rules.

Comment by root-parent 2 days ago

Its not off topic, as reply to the comment, the post is replying.

Comment by unethical_ban 2 days ago

It's absolutely off-topic to moan about systemd on every post about Linux.

If there was a complaint about how systemd complicated builds and tests in a specific way the commenter could name, that'd be valid. Just finger-wagging is tiring after how many, 10 years?

Comment by einpoklum 2 days ago

We moan about Microsoft's horrid choices with its operating choices, already for, what, let's say 40 years now? 45? When they cut it out, start using standards, stop forcing crap onto their users (not all of Windows is crap; a lot of it is quite solid), stop with the spying and surveillance, and of course make the code FOSS, then we'll stop the moaning.

It's similar for systemd. It's a poor architectural choice and it needs to be undone. And that's ignoring the personal drama surrounding it over the years which, indeed, needs to be let go by now.

As for topicality: This post is about the "sausage" that is a distribution. Following this metaphor and mentioning a problem with a certain kind of sausage is on-topic.