Re: Fedora Extras Development Build Report

[Michael Schwendt <bugs michael gmx net>]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:12:36 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 17:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It did not.
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156213
> > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/development/build-logs/ppc/gnupg2-1.9.15-2.log
> 
> Strange. It did for me an hour or two ago.
> 
> > Sometimes build failures are specific to mach or clean(er) chroots.
> 
> It could also have been a gcc bug which is since fixed. Did the package
> maintainer actually look into it? _Is_ there a package maintainer?
> 
> Why is there a gnupg2-1.9.15-2.i386.rpm in Extras for i386? If the
> package fails to build, it shouldn't get into the tree.

We did not build for ppc when Fedora Extras started.
Later x86_64 was added. And then ppc.

"Where we are" with regard to maintaining packages, is something we
need to find out...