[Fedora-ia64-list] F8 for ia64 now available

[Doug Chapman]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 18:21 +0800, Zhan, Yi wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:53 -0500, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > 
> > > In fact, the weird thing is that many drivers is missing in the
> > > stage2.img. The directory <stage2>/usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/ only
> > > contains one driver "vesa_drv.so". Since the xorg.conf seems to be
> > > generated at stage2 by using pyxf86config, I guess this is why the
> > > string 'Driver "vesa"' appears in the default config file. We do have
> > > the 'ati' and many other drivers built in "everything", but pungi just
> > > refused to add them to the stage2.img. 
> > > 
> > > Do you have any idea why this happen?  
> > 
> > This sounds like a packaging error on my part.  I did need to do some
> > customizing due to some of the X server packages not building.  Possibly
> > ati was left out due to this.
> > 
> 
> Verified that by doing a few tries with pungi. The issue could be avoid
> by adding the 6 xorg-x11-drv-*'s mentioned in the missing packages
> section to the repo and compose an new iso.
> 
> IMO, we may need some updates for the iso and the 'everything'? Two
> things I noticed when trying to build the lack packages.

I don't plan on rebuilding F8 iso images.  This would be better
addressed in the rawhide tree for F9.

> a) 72 more perl packages, tetex and some other packages could be built
> cleanly now. Adding these to everything repo let some useful packages,
> such as git, be installed without dependency trouble.

Yes, I have some F8 updates which includes a bunch of the perl stuff that
I need to push out.  Hopefully I will have this out in a day or two.

> 
> b) It seems that packages in the "prebuilt" directory previous are not
> in everything repo this time. I agree that having a clean distro is
> important. But we may still need the prebuilt stuffs (like the
> xorg-x11-drv-*) for now. Generating a complete list for this packages
> might be good. 

Honestly this was intentional.  I wanted to make sure that we didn't
skip over packages that do not build.  If we include hacked up packages
in F8 then they would not get noticed.  I know this is somewhat painful
but it helps in the long term goal of getting Fedora-ia64 up to on par
with the other arches.

> 
> One more thing, I compared the built packages in F8-ia64 everything's
> SRPMS with the official F8 SRPMS. There are totally about 452 packages
> did not build and about 8 packages using slightly different version. For
> now I got 88 packages to build and verify 48 packages which are arch
> excluded. I think it's good to identify each package's state, failed
> reason and tricks to get it build. The problem is how to share these
> info?

Yes, I really need to build a list which I will put on the wiki.  I
should be done with my critical RHEL work later this week and I plan
on spending a solid week or two just on Fedora issues to sort things
like this out.

What I plan on doing is having 5 lists:

A: packages that are not applicable on ia64
B: packages that don't build due to excludearch ia64 but ARE needed
C: packages that have build failures on ia64
D: packages that fail to build due to missing deps (i.e.needs something
from list B or C).
E: still to be investigated

So far all packages that are not built are in list E :)

Packages in lists B or C will get BZs assigned to them, this will also
be noted in the list.

In the meantime, if people have specific packages that are of interest
let me know and I will look at those first.  If you have done some
investigation on why it doesn't build then even better!

- Doug