Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

[Geoff]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:58:55 +0300, Robert Hagan <roberthagan at gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi.. I am new to Fedora-ppc but I do think that there should be at
> least a 13.. Really it is important for us all to have some self
> respect and move forward.  Although I travel too much but can arrange
> a ppc unit (PowerStation) or maybe two to support this effort.   I am
> a firm believer in integrity and would like to support those who also
> have self respect.
> 
> Please let me know how I can help.  Best wishes to all, Robert.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:00 PM, 
<fedora-ppc-request at lists.infradead.org>
> wrote:
>> Send Fedora-ppc mailing list submissions to
>>        fedora-ppc at lists.infradead.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ppc
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        fedora-ppc-request at lists.infradead.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        fedora-ppc-owner at lists.infradead.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Fedora-ppc digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1 (Dan Hor?k)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:05:04 +0200
>> From: Dan Hor?k <dan at danny.cz>
>> To: fedora-ppc at lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
>> Message-ID: <1276031104.2408.47.camel at eagle.danny.cz>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> David Woodhouse p??e v ?t 08. 06. 2010 v 13:52 +0100:
>>> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 14:09 +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> > Hash: SHA1
>>> >
>>> > thus Josh Boyer spake:
>>> > > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:47:33AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> > >> On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 13:39 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> > >>> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 08:17:23PM +0300, Robert Hagan wrote:
>>> > >>>> As somewhat of a novice at both Fedora and powerpc, does anyone
>>> > >>>> have
>>> > >>>> news on when we may expect Fedora13 for powerpc to be
available?
>>> > >>> There is no ETA for Fedora 13 ppc/ppc64.
>>> > >> I took a quick look at this. I was _hoping_ that it would be a
>>> > >> simple
>>> > >> case of doing a compose... but there are actually quite a lot of
>>> > >> build
>>> > >> failures.
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes, they have grown over the past couple of months.  I tried
>>> > > reporting build
>>> > > failures in bugzilla with limited success and I don't have time to
>>> > > fix them
>>> > > all at the moment.
>>> > >
>>> > >> Is there any tool to make sense of these and find the original
>>> > >> failure
>>> > >>from which the others cascade, and to resubmit the dependent
>>> > >>failures?
>>> > >
>>> > > No.  Other than the output from koji-shadow, which isn't really
>>> > > accessible or
>>> > > easy to read over.
>>> > >
>>> > >> Is there a generic "Fedora secondary arches" mailing list where
>>> > >> such
>>> > >> things should be discussed?
>>> > >
>>> > > secondary at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> > >
>>> > >> Let's pick the gcc-4.4.4-5.fc13 build failure as the first one to
>>> > >> investigate.... it failed in deps due to not finding
>>> > >> /usr/lib64/libc.so.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Is this because the glibc64 package isn't tagged in
>>> > >> SHADOWBUILD-dist-f13-build? Perhaps because Jakub never did a
>>> > >> build of
>>> > >> glibc64 for F-13? Can we remedy that?
>>> > >
>>> > > This is because koji-shadow is dumb and didn't bring in the
glibc64
>>> > > package.
>>> > > It will likely work if submitted by hand.
>>> > >
>>> > >> Can we get the build repositories rsynced onto bombadil so that
we
>>> > >> can
>>> > >> use mock manually there?
>>> > >
>>> > > The repos for the tags?  Not sure.  My bandwidth is the limiting
>>> > > factor for
>>> > > most of this and I'm hoping to get new hardware placed into the
>>> > > PXH2 datacenter
>>> > > in not horribly long.
>>>
>>> How much bandwidth does it take to upload the built packages? Surely
you
>>> can't build them faster than you can upload them? :)
>>>
>>> How much CPU power do you have there, anyway?
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I'm interested in this port (as well as I'm interested in a CentOS
>>> > PowerPC port), but I don't have too much spare time left to be able
to
>>> > do some work here.
>>> >
>>> > However, I do have some hardware (both an IBM Power 285 and 275) as
>>> > well
>>> > as internet connectivity to give, as long as it is within an
>>> > acceptable
>>> > scale (I work for an ISP and have some colo space).
>>> >
>>> > So, if I can be of any help hosting stuff on x86 machines, please
tell
>>> > me. I could furthermore set up one of the Power machines, however
it'd
>>> > surely take some time.
>>>
>>> The issue is getting the build horsepower and the hosting in the same
>>> place, I think. I'm not sure if those two boxes would suffice to do
the
>>> work that jwb's cluster is doing... but if so, perhaps we could cope
if
>>> you were to just do a basic install to each of them and connect them.
>>
>> from my experience in Fedora/s390x most bandwidth is needed for the
hub,
>> the builders (or a group of builders) can use a cache and be in a
>> different location, it works quite well for us
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fedora-ppc mailing list
>> Fedora-ppc at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ppc
>>
>>
>> End of Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4
>> *****************************************
>>

-- 
Regards

Geoff McIver
021 419 434