omalleys@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Nice chart!
> I was poking through the diffs, and in a number of spots
> It shows:
>
> -ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9
> +ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9 armv7hl
>
> I thought we were adding armv5tel as well when we added armv7hl or
> does armv5tel not need the ExclusiveArch tag?
>
Should we not simply add %{arm} and catch all variants?
d.marlin
========
>
>
>
> Quoting DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>> Based on an internal mirror of the various repositories (i.e. it might
>> be slightly out of date), I wrote a script to compare the SRPMs
>> (diff'ing the contents) generated during stage4 with SRPMs from other
>> sources (mostly, F15 official ones, but also from SRPMs still in the
>> builder queues). Color coded with diffs and stats:
>>
>> http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html
>>
>> (uses javascript to show/hide diffs)
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> 99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
>> upstream to diff against)
>>
>> 3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
>> CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
>> development)
>>
>> 5 SRPMs match rawhide
>>
>> 11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not upstream
>>
>> 0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content
>>
>> 30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an older
>> rawhide)
>>
>> 4704 SRPMs match GA or updates (name and content match)
>>
>>
>> Note: the HTML file is about 1 MB
>> _______________________________________________
>> arm mailing list
>> arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
