Fedora 46 asks to switch the default RPM format to v6

A proposal, not a shipped default

Panu Matilainen filed the change on Fedora Discussion on October 13, 2026. The wiki page, last updated the same day, asks to move the whole distribution from the RPM v4 package format to the native v6 format of RPM 6.x. The page says a change proposal is announced for feedback and is implemented only if the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee approves it. The FESCo issue, tracker bug, and release-notes tracker lines were empty on the copy this brief used. Phoronix's account is that Fedora 46 is looking at the move. Looking at is the right tense. A version string, and what a default has to mean before a steering committee votes, is the standing briefwhat a version number has to mean.

What v6 is, in the proposal's words

The wiki says v6 is an evolution of v4, not a new format, and that it is widely compatible with RPM 4.x. It says the format is considered stable and has been the default in upstream RPM since the 6.0 release, and that distribution machinery could still reveal papercuts. It says there is little user-visible impact and that v4 and v6 packages can coexist. Local scripts that assume particular v4 package characteristics may need adjusting. The full compatibility breakdown is pointed at the RPM 6.0 release notes. In broad strokes the proposal says the format is compatible down to around the RHEL 8 era of RPM. The open-source desk isOpen Source.

The macro that keeps v4

The same page says it is still possible to build v4 by setting the _rpmformat macro to 4 when building packages. That is the escape hatch the proposal itself prints. A distribution default and a per-build override are different switches. Approving the change would change the default output. It would not, on this text, delete the older format. Ubuntu's interim image, a different archive with its own package story, is Asked directly, Does the proposal say v6 packages break v4 systems? It says v6 is an evolution of v4 and is widely compatible with RPM 4.x, with a broad compatibility line back to around the RHEL 8 era of RPM. Local scripts that assume v4 package details may need changes.Ubuntu 26.10.

What the contingency plan says

The contingency mechanism is to revert to v4, with the change owners doing that, and to rebuild existing v6 packages to v4 as a side effect of the mass rebuild. The contingency deadline is just before the mass rebuild. The page says the change does not block the release. Those three lines are the part a reader can check without guessing how the side tag will go. The software desk isSoftware.

What the straw poll is

The Discourse thread carries an advisory poll: strongly in favor, in favor with reservations, neutral, opposed but persuadable, or strongly opposed. The system post says the poll gauges sentiment. It is not a vote and not a scientific survey. Comments that would change a mind are pointed at the devel mailing list. A count on that poll is not a FESCo ballot. The paper is Asked directly, Has FESCo approved RPM v6 as Fedora 46's default? The wiki says the proposal will be implemented only if the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee approves it. The FESCo issue line was blank on the page this brief used.Futureweb.

What an earlier Fedora change left out

A prior Fedora change for RPM 6.0 said adopting the v6 package format was explicitly out of scope, and that Fedora would keep generating v4 even if upstream's default differed. This proposal is the later request to take that step in Fedora 46. The two pages answer different questions. One said the format change was not in that release. This one asks for the format change and still waits on FESCo. Hardware, for a board rather than a package header, isHardware.

What this page will not treat as done

Phoronix reporting that Fedora is looking at RPM v6 does not make v6 the format a Fedora 46 user has. The wiki's own header says the proposal is implemented only after approval. Until that ticket exists and passes, the record is a request, a compatibility claim, a macro that still emits v4, and a rollback timed to the mass rebuild. The security desk, for an advisory rather than a package header, isSecurity.

Who owns the revert

The contingency names the change owners as the people who revert to v4. It does not name a date for Fedora 46's final freeze beyond the mass-rebuild deadline. A reader who builds packages today can try the macro. A reader who wants the distribution default has to wait for the steering committee. That split is the whole brief. Networking, for a path rather than a package, is Asked directly, Can a packager still produce an RPM v4 package? The proposal says setting the _rpmformat macro to 4 still builds the v4 format.Networking.

Where the announcement sits

The discussion post is the announcement. The wiki is the change page. Phoronix is a third account that the proposal is public. Feature claims in this brief come from the wiki. The poll's status comes from the discussion thread. Nothing here is a Fedora 46 release note. The short answer this page will stand on is this: It would make RPM 6.x's native v6 package format the default output for the distribution. The wiki says this is a proposal until the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee approves it. v4 and v6 packages can coexist, and a macro can still force v4.