On 01/08/2015 02:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On 8 January 2015 at 12:51, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org > <mailto:johnny at 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. -------------- 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/20150108/c378566a/attachment-0008.sig>