On 8 January 2015 at 14:35, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > 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. > 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? -- Stephen J Smoogen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150108/56561cde/attachment-0008.html>