On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 08:55 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > The explanation is a different one. Fedora pre-Extras started with > > > i386/x86_64 builds only and published whatever did built on i386. No > > > ppc > > > builds were done. Only later build failures on one arch have started > > > to > > > block an entire release. > > > > Wrong; they were being built here at home right up until pre-FC4t2 for > > ppc (when Seth got a build box, and I stopped) > > Wrong or right, doesn't matter at all. There's a huge discrepancy between > what packages we have on each of the architectures. And really nobody else > has the overview of what was built for ppc and what was not. repoview had the generated magic, fwiw. http://fedoraproject.org/extras/development/ppc/repodata/ And I did post failed logs, and alerted extras-list > > > And no mass-rebuild for ppc was done either when a ppc build box was > > > introduced. > > > > I reckon as FC-4 becomes near, we need a mass rebuild on all arch's, one > > way or another > > Or just a rebuild of packages, which have not been built with gcc4 yet. Do these still exist on x86, as well? > > How about the date get set to start around 26th May? This gives us > > relatively enough time to rebuild, and get things fixed before 6th June. > > Fedora Extras FC4 target bugs > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=157183 Thanks > (would be great if the dep tree listed the architecture, too, btw) And thanks for adding to the the fedora-ppc tracker as well (which you've done a great job of doing when its arch specific) -- Colin Charles, http://www.bytebot.net/
