On 8 January 2015 at 14:35, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/08/2015 02:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 January 2015 at 12:51, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
eating that list of things missing right now, once I get it, I > will look at the build logs to see what we need to try to rebuild. Here is a list of Packages that have a .x86_64.rpm but will not havean
i686.rpm If any of these are a show stopper for someone, we will need a way to make them build: http://fpaste.org/167305/ Hopefully we will have an installable test tree soon.Johnny, a bit confused.. this looks like a list of i686 packages
spice-server-0.12.4-5.el7_0.1.i686.rpm spice-server-0.12.4-5.el7.i686.rpm spice-server-devel-0.12.4-5.el7_0.1.i686.rpm spice-server-devel-0.12.4-5.el7.i686.rpm supermin-4.1.4-2.el7.i686.rpm supermin-helper-4.1.4-2.el7.i686.rpm tboot-1.7.4-1.el7.i686.rpm virt-top-1.0.8-7.el7.i686.rpm xorg-x11-server-Xspice-0.1.1-9.el7.i686.rpm
Posted by hughesjr at 08 Jan 2015, 05:24:33 UTC
Right ... I took all the x86_64 rpms and I did a sed replace of x86_64 with i686 to generate a full list of i686 packages if everything built.
I then actually removed from the list everything we actually have that will build.
That leaves this list .. which is package names (including i686) that will not build in i686.
Ah ok. The fact that you called them x86_64 but it said i686 confused me. I would say that the lack of Xspice is going to make the system unusable in the KVM console. Is there a place to see where it didn't build and why?