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

Re: Fedora Extras Development Build Report

On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 05:10 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Hmmm, missing gpgme-devel on ppc, most likely because gnupg2 fails
> to build there.

No, gnupg2 builds fine on PPC. According to the log the failure seems to
have been due to the absence of gpgme -- although I'm not entirely sure
why that should be the case; gpgme builds fine too. As does seahorse, if
its dependencies are actually installed correctly before you try to
build it.

I've looked at three supposed PPC failures today, two of which were
apparently due to a simple failure to install dependencies, and the
third of which lacks a build log but I guess it was probably the same.
All three of those packages build fine for me.

> If there are still proponents of the "one failing arch blocks all other
> archs", it's about time for arch-specific community contributors to help
> with fixing packages which fail.

The offer of access to a PPC machine for package maintainers if they're
having problems is still open. The machine I set aside for that is still
on FC3 at the moment, but I suppose I should update it to FC4 some time

While I'm happy enough to help out if anyone is having difficulty, we do
need _maintainers_ for Extras packages, not just package-monkeys. 


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