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 > >> https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!syslinux/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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150105/754836b7/attachment-0008.sig>