Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

Wed Jun 9 15:45:02 EDT 2010

Firsty, Apologies for the blank email. I'm rather fat fingered in the
small hours.

Secondly, I too think we should be moving forward and would, like most
people here, offer my assitance to the effort.
What steps need to be taken to get us there?  Is it a simple case of
compiling the source packages and building then shipping the repositories
to the mirrors?

I currently run 12 on a macmini with a g4 powerpc and would be willing to
offer it's services for compiling.  I don't currently have a spare machine
for testing unfortunatly.

So who is in the know about the tasks ahead of us?

Regards

Geoff McIver

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:31:12 +1200, Geoff <geoff at p0wdr.com> wrote:
> 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