Wonder when Fedora 41 might have repo?

[msetzerii]

Have 7 Fedora 40 machines, and updated one to Fedora 41.
Upgrade went thru fine with exception of not have a winehq repo for 41 yet.
Also, seems the 41 has regular wine at 9.15 without 9.20 yet?
So wine files show as 9.15, but winehq as 9.17?

In past only updated machines after the new repo was out, and modified the winehq.repo to the new version, but now it doesn't yet exist.
Note sure if this will be days, week or weeks.

[dimesio]

We should have Fedora 41 packages with the next Wine release, barring any unexpected build issues.

Also, seems the 41 has regular wine at 9.15 without 9.20 yet?
So wine files show as 9.15, but winehq as 9.17?

We have not built any packages for Fedora 41 yet; perhaps you're seeing the distro packages?

[msetzerii]

Machine upgrade to Fedora 41 shows this with winehq repo set to 40?
wine-devel-9.17-1.1.x86_64
winehq-devel-9.17-1.1.x86_64

Machines still on Fedora 40 show this??
wine-devel-9.20-1.1.x86_64
winehq-devel-9.20-1.1.x86_64

So appears that during the upgrade the wine was changed to 9.17 from the 9.20?

This shows if running dnf upgrade

Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package wine-devel-1:9.17-1.1.x86_64
- nothing provides libavformat.so.60()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavutil.so.58()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
Problem 2: package winehq-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ requires wine-devel = 1:9.20-1.1, but none of the providers can be installed
- cannot install the best update candidate for package winehq-devel-1:9.17-1.1.x86_64
- nothing provides libavformat.so.60()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavutil.so.58()(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ
- nothing provides libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) needed by wine-devel-1:9.20-1.1.x86_64 from WineHQ

So looks like the upgrade process from 40 to 41 resulted in a downgrade from 9.20 to 9.17 for these reasons.
In past generally, did the upgrade after winehq already had the newere Repo, but 41 repo is not currently availalble.
THanks

[dimesio]

Installing packages built for Fedora 40 into Fedora 41 is not supported. In this particular case, the reason dnf won't install it is because the Fedora 41 distro repository has a different version of the libav* dependencies than 40. That problem should disappear when we build packages for Fedora 41 because they will be built in Fedora 41.

As for the reference to 9.17, that appears to be a reference to the version you already have installed on your system. Are you sure that's not the distro Wine package, installed when you upgraded your OS?

[msetzerii]

As I stated. The System that was upgraded had the 9.20 installed on it befor the upgrade. So during the upgrade to 41, I had seen a message that I believe 8 packages were being downgraded, but didn't note which ones they were. Must assume that these 6 where part of them. Then it must have opted to install 9.17 version, since it meet the dependancies with the versions that 41 had?

Again, the Fedora 41 Winehq repo doesn't even exist at this point. So, hopefully, these versions of packages are upgraded Fedora 41 that the version will be updated.
That is why I had done the upgrade on a test machine before doing it on a primary machine. Currently, 7 time zones away from Fedora 41 system. So, will hold off updating any of the other systems. It does still run wine, but just the 9.17 instead of the 9.20 it had installed before.

[dimesio]

Then it must have opted to install 9.17 version, since it meet the dependancies with the versions that 41 had?

I didn't think of this before, but the libav* dependencies were added in 9.18. I think what happened is your package manager downgraded to the last package that didn't need them.

[msetzerii]

That makes sense. Again it was the dnf upgrade from Fedora 40 to Fedora 41.
After the upgrade it had changed the wine to 9.17 instead of the 9.20 that had been working with the Fedora 40.
Still check for updates in Fedora for the libav files, but haven't seen any, and still no repo for Fedora 41.
Not clear where the libav files are suppose to come from.
On Fedora 40 search doesn't show it with this search?
rpm -qa | grep libav
libavc1394-0.5.4-22.fc40.x86_64
libavif-1.0.4-3.fc40.x86_64
libavif-1.0.4-3.fc40.i686
libavdevice-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugin-libav-1.24.9-1.fc40.x86_64
# rpm -qa | grep wine | grep devel
wine-devel-9.20-1.1.x86_64
winehq-devel-9.20-1.1.x86_64

[dimesio]

They are subpackages of ffmpeg, and definitely exist in both Fedora 40 and 41, but different versions.
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs ... odec-free/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs ... rmat-free/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs ... util-free/

[msetzerii]

Looked at files on system /lib64 and seems the have .61 version instead of the .60?

So, looks like Fedora 41 has newer versions, winehq is looking for a specific version versus looking for 60 or higher?
Thanks for info.

[msetzerii]

Fedora 41 repo now exist and updated to the 9.21 with no problem.

Main page still shows support for 39 and 40, but the 41 repo now exists and the update from the 9.17 version to 9.21 version went thru just fine.