-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
- -- Sincerely, Bob Lightfoot "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 {NIV/84}
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!syslinux/refs!heads!c7-i686
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
- --
Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
On 01/05/2015 07:01 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
I am pretty sure I did do a massive i686 rebuild .. it is possible I missed a couple, but not very many.
On 01/05/2015 07:01 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.i386/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/01/15 14:37, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/05/2015 07:01 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.i386/
Yeah Johnny :-)
I saw that one too, but what I meant was that not all of those packages were tried again after that, and were depending on other packages. In that specific example (ibus-sayura) the http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.... clearly mentions a need for pyOpenSSL, which itself had been built after (http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/pyOpenSSL/20140529192726/0.13.1-3.el7.i...) so when I said 'massive rebuild' I meant retrying all failed packages after the first run and that would (probably) succeed now that build deps are satisfied :-)
- --
Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
On 01/05/2015 07:44 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 14:37, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/05/2015 07:01 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.i386/
Yeah Johnny :-)
I saw that one too, but what I meant was that not all of those packages were tried again after that, and were depending on other packages. In that specific example (ibus-sayura) the http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.... clearly mentions a need for pyOpenSSL, which itself had been built after (http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/pyOpenSSL/20140529192726/0.13.1-3.el7.i...) so when I said 'massive rebuild' I meant retrying all failed packages after the first run and that would (probably) succeed now that build deps are satisfied :-)
Right .. I did that once already, but obviously I missed a few.
I am creating 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.
On 01/05/2015 02:32 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/05/2015 07:44 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 14:37, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 01/05/2015 07:01 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 05/01/15 13:51, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/26/2014 05:24 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/12/14 16:54, Bob Lightfoot wrote: > Dear Devs: I have been reading this mailing list since C7 > came out and of late have not seen much progress on C7.i686 > aka 32 bit. I don't see a SIG for it on the Centos Pages. > I am wondering has the idea been dropped or where does it > stand?
the larger goal is to let this effort be user-led, so starting up a SIG might be a good way to go here. I know that the original bootstrap had most of the builds done - and Andreas ( assited by others ) had gotten most of the bits done. There would be a need to run the updates, and then also identify what portion of the distro is not going to make it to i686 at all. The rest from there should be easy...
As I did with the powerpc effort, happy to host a i686 specific google hangout where I can walk people through the build process, and what they need to do in order to affect builds in the centos buildsystem.
- KB
I now have a working syslinux and kernel in git.centos.org under c7-i686
I am building those every time they update for i686 as well as x86_64
I have all the RPMs currently built, including the java-1.6.0-openjdk built that was an issue .. I'll post the RPM list and what is missing (compared to x86_64) and we can try to figure out what we need to make build (We may need to change some other things that they made exclusivearch x86_64, like they did syslinux)
Then we can get an i686 test spin out.
Here is the kernel and syslinux links for i686
https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7-i686
I had to reinstall an old thinkpad (family laptop used by the kids) and wanted to build a C7/i386 livecd to install it with minimal desktop, but some packages (like ibus-sayura) are missing from buildlogs.centos.org and no build logs either for i386, meaning no built was even tried .. Can we just massively try to build all packages to i386 to at least have logs and see why they fail (or not) ?
c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.i386/
Yeah Johnny :-)
I saw that one too, but what I meant was that not all of those packages were tried again after that, and were depending on other packages. In that specific example (ibus-sayura) the http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/ibus-sayura/20140529190519/1.3.2-3.el7.... clearly mentions a need for pyOpenSSL, which itself had been built after (http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/pyOpenSSL/20140529192726/0.13.1-3.el7.i...) so when I said 'massive rebuild' I meant retrying all failed packages after the first run and that would (probably) succeed now that build deps are satisfied :-)
Right .. I did that once already, but obviously I missed a few.
I am creating 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 have an i686.rpm
If any of these are a show stopper for someone, we will need a way to make them build:
Hopefully we will have an installable test tree soon.
On 8 January 2015 at 12:51, Johnny Hughes 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 have an i686.rpm
If any of these are a show stopper for someone, we will need a way to make them build:
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
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
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 have an 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.
I just want people to see what is NOT going to be in there.
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?
On 01/08/2015 03:44 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 January 2015 at 14:35, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto: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> > <mailto: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 have an > 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?
Yes, All of the build logs are here:
(in c7.00.0[2-4] or c7-updates)
error: Architecture is not included: i686 Building target platforms: i686 Building for target i686 Child return code was: 1
seems pretty common. How can I patch these as I am expecting it is ExcludeArch?
On 8 January 2015 at 14:50, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/08/2015 03:44 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 January 2015 at 14:35, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto: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 <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 torebuild.
> > Here is a list of Packages that have a .x86_64.rpm but willnot have an
> i686.rpm > > If any of these are a show stopper for someone, we will need away 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 ofx86_64
with i686 to generate a full list of i686 packages if everythingbuilt.
I then actually removed from the list everything we actually havethat
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?
Yes, All of the build logs are here:
(in c7.00.0[2-4] or c7-updates)
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 01/08/2015 04:49 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
error: Architecture is not included: i686 Building target platforms: i686 Building for target i686 Child return code was: 1
Well, we can change the spec file, but things like qemu will not build i686 (they didn't even for 6) ..
I looked at the Springdale build and they also do not have any of those packages .. so likely they will not build even if tired.
BTW ...
https://twitter.com/Arrfab/status/553547691272445953
We have a working Live ISO and I am working on os/ and updates/ trees .. should have something in QA next week.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
<snip>
On 9 January 2015 at 07:29, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 01/08/2015 04:49 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
error: Architecture is not included: i686 Building target platforms: i686 Building for target i686 Child return code was: 1
Well, we can change the spec file, but things like qemu will not build i686 (they didn't even for 6) ..
I looked at the Springdale build and they also do not have any of those packages .. so likely they will not build even if tired.
Ah ok. I was thinking that the seabios was needed to boot a 32 bit image.. boy am I slooow since I should know that isn't the case.
Will try the image and test it this weekend.
BTW ...
https://twitter.com/Arrfab/status/553547691272445953
We have a working Live ISO and I am working on os/ and updates/ trees .. should have something in QA next week.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
<snip>
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 01/09/2015 01:19 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 9 January 2015 at 07:29, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 01/08/2015 04:49 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > error: Architecture is not included: i686 > Building target platforms: i686 > Building for target i686 > Child return code was: 1 > Well, we can change the spec file, but things like qemu will not build i686 (they didn't even for 6) .. I looked at the Springdale build and they also do not have any of those packages .. so likely they will not build even if tired.Ah ok. I was thinking that the seabios was needed to boot a 32 bit image.. boy am I slooow since I should know that isn't the case.
Will try the image and test it this weekend.
There still might be some more things we can build ... but we can let the testers find it if we need to.
BTW ... https://twitter.com/Arrfab/status/553547691272445953 We have a working Live ISO and I am working on os/ and updates/ trees .. should have something in QA next week. Thanks, Johnny Hughes <snip>
Hello.
It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration of IPs tech.
So they got a /48 range. I were trying to add it with:
ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):
IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx CLONENUM_START=0
But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is implemented.
Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole /48 must be available and virtualized.
Thanks.
This seems like it's more suited to the main list, as it doesn't deal with the development of the project, distribution, or SIGs.
On 01/10/2015 12:09 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
Hello.
It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration of IPs tech.
So they got a /48 range. I were trying to add it with:
ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):
IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx CLONENUM_START=0
But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is implemented.
Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole /48 must be available and virtualized.
Thanks. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Bob Lightfoot -
F. Mendez -
Fabian Arrotin -
Jim Perrin -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Stephen John Smoogen