Bug 2337295

Summary: libgcc and noisy post-install scriptlet
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jeffrey Walton <noloader>
Component: gccAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 41CC: barsnick, dmalcolm, fweimer, jakub, jlaw, josmyers, jwakely, mcermak, mpolacek, msebor, nickc, nixuser, noloader, sipoyare
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-01-13 10:09:11 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jeffrey Walton 2025-01-13 05:27:59 UTC
I'm working on Fedora 41, x86_64, fully patched. A dnf upgrade of libgcc-0:14.2.1-7.fc41 was noisy:

$ dnf upgrade
...

Running transaction
[ 1/64] Verify package files            100% | 140.0   B/s |  31.0   B |  00m00s
[ 2/64] Prepare transaction             100% | 135.0   B/s |  62.0   B |  00m00s
[ 3/64] Upgrading libgcc-0:14.2.1-7.fc4 100% |  26.6 MiB/s | 272.5 KiB |  00m00s
>>> Running post-install scriptlet: libgcc-0:14.2.1-7.fc41.x86_64warning: posix.fork(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are deprecated, use rpm.spawn() or rpm.execute() instead
warning: posix.wait(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are deprecated, use rpm.spawn() or rpm.execute() instead
warning: posix.wait(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are deprecated, use rpm.spawn() or rpm.execute() instead
...

Comment 1 barsnick 2025-01-13 06:55:10 UTC
Apparently a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291927

Comment 2 Jeffrey Walton 2025-01-13 07:29:14 UTC
(In reply to barsnick from comment #1)
> Apparently a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2291927

Yes, it appears so. Sorry about the extra noise.

(Bugzilla search absolutely sucks. I tried searching for a similar bug report and Bugzilla could not find the 2291927 bug. For a project that has been around for 30 years, I would expect them to get searching right by now).

Comment 3 Jonathan Wakely 2025-01-13 10:09:11 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2291927 ***