[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Are we building against CentOS 5.2 or 5.1



On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:59:09 -0500 (CDT), Mike McGrath wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> >
> > > > The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
> > > > that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
> > > Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of
> > > the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like
> > > missing dependency: kernel-devel,
> >
> > That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT
> > available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For
> > the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
> >
> 
> Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again.  Changing:
> 
> process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
> 
> to
> 
> process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
> 
> ?

Ah, no, I forgot that somebody added that stuff. In the context of
process_deps this additional line near the top, where a similar thing
is done for ppc, would be needed (I only see a diff of a script called
checkEpel.sh):

    [ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 || arch_label=$arch

$arch is used in the repo ids, $arch_label passed to Yum.

Dunno where that process_deps() function comes from. It's broken as
I've told stahnma (who might be its author). It ought to run rc-report
on all report-files at once as was done around May.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]