<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-04-08 16:39, Fabian Arrotin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f0bd4150-32b4-6852-b531-3322c721f67e@centos.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 08/04/17 11:36, Zdenek Sedlak wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I have an interest to keep some i686 hardware running with CentOS 7
installed. However there are some packages in EPEL I need so I am
willing to help with maintaning/building the i686 packages for both CentOS and EPEL.
Could you point me what I can do to join the effort?
Thanks
//Zdenek
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If you target EPEL, you should probably ask that on the EPEL list.
AFAIK, as EPEL is rebuild against RHEL (and only RHEL, following their
building guidelines), all non-released architectures aren't supported
and so not targeted.
That's the reason why Johnny started an initial rebuild (but don't know
if that's a continuous effort though) for el7/i{3,6}686 that appeared on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-epel/">https://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-epel/</a> (but doesn't seem to be maintained
nor tracked) but that's not part of any official SIG/effort.
Same for armhfp architecture : as users were searching for such packages
that aren't built, we were just using the armhfp builders to try a
rebuild of epel SRPMs (without any testing/signing so raw output from
the builders) and all that is available here :
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://armv7.dev.centos.org/repodir/epel-pass-1/">https://armv7.dev.centos.org/repodir/epel-pass-1/</a>
I've even been contacted by some people saying that I/we can't call it
EPEL as it's not the real one ... Don't know what to think about this,
and we tried to have EPEL rebuilding against CentOS for Alt Arches not
supported upstream but that went nowhere. Maybe try asking again there ?
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel">https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><font face="Cantarell">Well the problem I see is
what you describe here - EPEL is following RHEL and I don't
expect them to be interested in building EPEL for i386/arm/ppc.<br>
<br>
Do you think the AltArch effort could be expanded with EPEL
builds for arm/i386/ppc? <br>
It wouldn't harm anything, would it? <br>
I have a personal interests in i386 and also armhf so I could
help with my time/hardware.<br>
<br>
Regarding the "EPEL" name - well I don't see this as a major
blocker - we could call it APEL (AltArch Packages for Enterprise
Linux) or similar. <br>
It is just a name and if you do "Provides: epel-release" in
apel-release, it would work seamlessly.<br>
<br>
//Zdenek<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>