Re: mismatch of versions between arches

[Colin Charles <byte aeon com my>]

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/