Testing Fedora on PPC Re: Missing Files

[Paul Nasrat]

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:37:55PM -0700, Marshall Clark wrote:
> New to list today.(sorry)

fedora-ppc list which you have already started this thread on is probably more
appropriate, as others here may be intrested in ppc state I'll repeat my reply
here, hopefully in a consolidated manor.

Also just a quick note - if you are moving questions to a new list please
choose a more meaningful topic, had I not seen your posts elsewhere I would not
have none from the Subject that it was fedora ppc specific.  For a good guide
on composing emails and choosing forums please see:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

> Is the development tree ok for testing by interested parties?

Testing is always welcome - however if you are testing rawhide or even a full
test release I point you at Jeff Spaleta's summary:

"Test releases eat babies. The nvidia driver, is just one of the many
juicy suculant babies the test process will devour. This and worse is
to be expected."

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2004-April/msg01469.html

The development tree is often changing installs are impossible due to it not
being self consistent (dependancies getting out of sync, etc).  Also note you
do not explicitly mention you are testing ppc which is NOT a supported platform
for fedora.  
> Missing files in /Fedora/Base and /images

This is ppc rawhide specific. To clarify rawhide is now missing the boot.iso
and stage2 images:

As already mentioned in personal mail and fedora-ppc list we know about this
and it's in bugzilla - if you want to track the process please add your CC to:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124657

That way you'll know about it as soon as it's fixed :)

> Googled the ones at Duke but tree is older and missing files do not work
> on new tree.

As I mentioned to you before rawhide can break, the tree at duke
is installable and works well if you follow the instructions here:

http://www.bytebot.net/geekdocs/ibook/fedorappc.html

The tree is available via http here - http://fedora.linux.duke.edu/fedorappc/  
I don't think it is available via ftp.

I have installed this tree on a iBook G3, iMac DV SE, G3 Powerbook (Lombard),
and yum updated a YDL install on a G5 (directly off the duke repo by http).
Looking at the remaining issues in the installer is on my TODO but not my
highest priority task.

This works for fedorappc by design, as rwahide can break it is a known working
snapshot.  A number of people aren't experiencing your b/w issues against that
server so it may be a local issue.  As it's a snapshot as of 14 May so v. close
to FC2.  I will try and find an additional mirror to push that snapshot to but 

You could try a http install using the boot.iso and pointing at that tree.

> Anaconda fails.

If you have the entire tree you can run buildinstall to create the
images/stage2.  See the Anaconda Documentation project for details:

http://rau.homedns.org/twiki/bin/view/Anaconda/AnacondaDocumentationProject

> Would love to test both 32bit and 64bit.
> I have 450mz cube and Dual G5.
> Might even go get a Powerbook in the not to distant future.

Thanks for your intrest in Fedora ppc, as you can see we are not quite there yet, most of the issues on ppc32 are known, biarch shouldn't be too much work off our tree as we will mostly run 32bit user space. 

If you are expecting a fully working distribution may be better off waiting for
YellowDog Linux 4 release which is based on Fedora Core 2, at the moment a
Fedora Core install requires manual testing and won't work out of the box as
smoothly as it does on x86 and x86_64.  Getting a installable FC2+updates tree
is something I wish to do as is having mac as a fully supported FC3 platform
but as mentioned it's really a question of developer time and priorities. 

Paul