Meeting started at 2026-07-01 15:30:44 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora_coreos_meeting'

!hi

rapneset: Rolv Apneseth (rapneset)

!hi

Hristo Marinov: Hristo Marinov (hricky) - he / him / his

!hi

!hi

marmijo: Michael Armijo (marmijo)

nimbinatus: Laura Santamaria (nimbinatus) - she / her / hers

!hi

Cade: Cade Jacobson (cadejacobson)

!hi

No Fedora Accounts users have the @peytonrobertson:matrix.org Matrix Account defined

!hi

spresti: Steven Presti (spresti)

!hi

We don't have anything in the schedule to discuss today. The next topic is "Change Checkpoint: Major Toolchain Updates/Changes have landed in Rawhide deadline", which takes place the 13th of July.

Yesterday was the deadline for "Change Checkpoint: Proposal submission deadline (Changes requiring mass rebuild)"

Yesterday was the deadline for "Change Checkpoint: Proposal submission deadline (Changes requiring mass rebuild / System Wide Changes)"

I think we have a couple changes in work for the self-contained changes deadline

!hi

jcapitao: Joel Capitao (jcapitao) - he / him / his

Great, if there is nothing to discuss further about this, then we can move onto the tracker issues.

I think this one is by marmijo

There's not much to discuss here this week. We have three new change considerations. Another GoLang update similar to F44 (116), so I'll open a tracker issue for that one specifically.

We also have another RPM version bump.

115

That will also require some additional investigation on our end, so I'll open a ticket so we can do that

The last one, 117, doesn't look like it'll affect FCOS

Pretty straight-forward week for changes. We've done GoLang and RPM bumps in previous releases, so I'll take a look at those and get some issues opened and linked

Interesting effort.

!hi

Timothée Ravier: Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his

Sounds good! In that case, we can move onto the second and last tracker issue for today.

for RPM 6.1 there is bugzilla for work on nss-altfiles

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2476417

(not stopping you from moving on, I'll past that in the tracker issue)

Thanks Timothée Ravier!

I have to drop. will read scrollback later.

!topic Allow passing in Butane configs directly to instances

I think this one is by spresti

Yeah, I added a meeting topic, today because I started writing up the proposal. Timothée Ravier and I were talking about the packaging going forward.

Not fully on topic - but I think that one of the two links in the last comment in the issue may not be right spresti ?

(there are two links in the comment, but they're both the same)

Whoops yes

Updated

Any downsides to merging into a single spec file?

Thanks! Sorry for the nit pick, was trying to make sure I got the full context :)

Im not sure that someone would always want ignition if they were just wanting to validate butane configs

What do you mean? The binaries would still be in distinct sub packages

That was a wrong assumption on my part then. sorry

I was thinking of merging everything into a single specfile in Fedora (the ignition one), but still produce all the independent packages that we have right now

(with the same names)

Hmm, so question

we can have the ignition specfile produce the butane package without issue AFAIK

would we be releasing butane separately ever?

If we do that this does indeed mean that everytime we need to touch one or the other only, we need to rebuild both

Hopefully we automate that with packit so that it's not too much work?

Packit downstream? last I checked its not a great story due to jira integration

Fedora sure

also we need signing

That, last I checked is not somthing we have access to and rely on relang team

yes

this one is unfortunately very manual :/

Would that make that much more releases? I don't think we release that often right now and we would likely combine the Ignition & Butane work into a single release for spec updates?

4th time in progress this year for butane, ignition is at 2

OCP is a guarantee butane release

Just to clarify, I'm OK keeping things split if there are advantages but I could not really find any so far

We will have to do "dual" releases for new ignition specs and that would mean double tickets for signing

Yeah I dont think there is a benifit. Just talking about the dual releases makes me sad, but regarding our actual talking point.. I agree.

Unless there are other thoughts?

!proposed: combine ignition and butane specs having butane be a subpackage of ignition archiving butane spec

+1

+1

+1

+1

!agreed: combine ignition and butane specs having butane be a subpackage of ignition archiving butane spec

Great, we can move on to the last topic of the day, the open floor. We have about 10m left.

Whoops, I think we need a agreed without the ":"

Thanks for that

podman 6.0 is in Rawhide for the advanturous ones :)

lots of changes

https://blog.podman.io/2026/06/podman-6-configuration-file-changes/

onward and upwards! podman 6.0

Ok! We have reached the end of the meeting, thank you very much everyone for attending