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 >>> >>>> 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) ? > >> 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.i386/root.log > 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.i386/) > 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. -------------- 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/20150105/9a81b296/attachment-0008.sig>