On 2017-04-08 16:39, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> On 08/04/17 11:36, Zdenek Sedlak wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have an interest to keep some i686 hardware running with CentOS 7
>> installed. However there are some packages in EPEL I need so I am
>> willing to help with maintaning/building the i686 packages for both CentOS and EPEL.
>>
>> Could you point me what I can do to join the effort?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> //Zdenek
>>
> If you target EPEL, you should probably ask that on the EPEL list.
> AFAIK, as EPEL is rebuild against RHEL (and only RHEL, following their
> building guidelines), all non-released architectures aren't supported
> and so not targeted.
>
> That's the reason why Johnny started an initial rebuild (but don't know
> if that's a continuous effort though) for el7/i{3,6}686 that appeared on
> https://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-epel/ (but doesn't seem to be maintained
> nor tracked) but that's not part of any official SIG/effort.
>
> Same for armhfp architecture : as users were searching for such packages
> that aren't built, we were just using the armhfp builders to try a
> rebuild of epel SRPMs (without any testing/signing so raw output from
> the builders) and all that is available here :
> https://armv7.dev.centos.org/repodir/epel-pass-1/
>
> I've even been contacted by some people saying that I/we can't call it
> EPEL as it's not the real one ... Don't know what to think about this,
> and we tried to have EPEL rebuilding against CentOS for Alt Arches not
> supported upstream but that went nowhere. Maybe try asking again there ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Well the problem I see is what you describe here - EPEL is following
RHEL and I don't expect them to be interested in building EPEL for
i386/arm/ppc.
Do you think the AltArch effort could be expanded with EPEL builds for
arm/i386/ppc?
It wouldn't harm anything, would it?
I have a personal interests in i386 and also armhf so I could help with
my time/hardware.
Regarding the "EPEL" name - well I don't see this as a major blocker -
we could call it APEL (AltArch Packages for Enterprise Linux) or similar.
It is just a name and if you do "Provides: epel-release" in
apel-release, it would work seamlessly.
//Zdenek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20170410/f830f7d6/attachment-0008.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20170410/f830f7d6/attachment-0008.sig>