F44 Change Proposal: Rust Uutils Coreutils 0.5 Nushell 0.109 [SelfContained]

Project Discussion Change Proposals
, ,
1

Rust Uutils Coreutils 0.5 Nushell 0.109

Wiki

Announced

This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux.
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.

Summary :open_book:

Upgrades [Making sure you're not a bot! rust-coreutils] and its set of associated crates from 0.0.27 to 0.5.x and [Making sure you're not a bot! rust-nu] from 0.99.1 to 0.109.2 or higher.

Owner :open_book:

Detailed Description :open_book:

rust-coreutils (our packaging of [coreutils | uutils uutils coreutils]) will get updated to the latest 0.5 series. This was previously packaged because enough of its crates are dependencies of nushell, and it did not take many more crates to get the standalone coreutils binaries usable regardless of which shell someone uses, but at version 0.0.27 every version change is semver breaking, making it difficult to update both coreutils and nushell.

Now that uutils coreutils is more mature - [Ubuntu – Details of package rust-coreutils in questing-updates 0.2.2 shipped as the default coreutils in Ubuntu 25.10] - we can update both sets of packages and their dependencies.

Note that we don’t plan to propose this to be the default coreutils in Fedora at this moment.

Feedback :open_book:

Benefit to Fedora :open_book:

Early adopters of rust-coreutils get feature improvements and bugfixes, without having to build from source. Users of both uutils coreutils and nushell will hopefully get faster updates in the future, as semver breaking changes to uutils crates will hopefully be less common now that it has gone through five minor releases.

Scope :open_book:

  • Proposal owners: update, package, and unretire dependent crates, and patch or update dependent packages as much as possible or provide compatibility crates when necessary. Updates will be broken up into multiple smaller sets that can be tested independently.
  • Other developers: N/A, but if you maintain a package depending on a Rust SIG package, please let us know if anything breaks. We will err towards providing compatibility crates if a change might be breaking.
  • Release engineering: [Making sure you're not a bot! #Releng issue number]
  • Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
  • Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
  • Alignment with the Fedora Strategy: Technology Innovation & Leadership

Upgrade/compatibility impact :open_book:

Users of [uutils-coreutils - Fedora Packages uutils-coreutils] and/or [nu - Fedora Packages nu] get upgraded to the new version. No compatibility impact is expected for uutils-coreutils, as the project tries to get more and more compatible with GNU coreutils over time.

For nushell these are the breaking changes since 0.99:

Early Testing (Optional) :open_book:

Do you require ‘QA Blueprint’ support? N

How To Test :open_book:

Enable the [Making sure you're not a bot! nu-wip COPR] where we stage changes not ready to land in Rawhide yet. Since Rust binaries are statically linked, once uutils-coreutils and nu are available users can also just download the binary and it should work even on Fedora 43 - or install them in a Rawhide chroot in mock to test.

User Experience :open_book:

Users benefit from around 1.5 years of improvements (as of January 2026) to uutils-coreutils and over 1 year of improvement to nushell.

Dependencies :open_book:

N/A, Rust crates and most Rust packages are collectively maintained by the Rust SIG

Contingency Plan :open_book:

  • Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)
  • Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
  • Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No

Documentation :open_book:

N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Release Notes :open_book:

\n

Last edited by @alking 2026-01-12T18:11:13Z

Last edited by @alking 2026-01-12T18:11:13Z

2

How do you feel about the proposal as written?

  • Strongly in favor
  • In favor, with reservations
  • Neutral
  • Opposed, but could be convinced
  • Strongly opposed
0 voters

If you are in favor but have reservations, or are opposed but something could change your mind, please explain in a reply.

We want everyone to be heard, but many posts repeating the same thing actually makes that harder. If you have something new to say, please say it. If, instead, you find someone has already covered what you’d like to express, please simply give that post a :heart: instead of reiterating. You can even do this by email, by replying with the heart emoji or just “+1”. This will make long topics easier to follow.

Please note that this is an advisory “straw poll” meant to gauge sentiment. It isn’t a vote or a scientific survey. See About the Change Proposals category for more about the Change Process and moderation policy.

3

This change proposal has now been submitted to FESCo with ticket #3555 for voting.

To find out more, please visit our Changes Policy documentation.

4

This change has been approved by FESCo and will be included in Fedora Linux 44.
To find out more about how our changes policy works, please visit our docs site.

FESCo Issue: Making sure you're not a bot!