On 2017-04-10 09:54, Zdenek Sedlak wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Ok I missed EPEL already supports aarch64 + ppc, so it's only the i386
and armhfp.
//Zdenek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20170410/5f49e06e/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/20170410/5f49e06e/attachment-0008.sig>