Anssi Hannula wrote: > Also, do we agree that *all* packages should be backported to latest > stable (e.g. 2006.0)? As the chroots are now offline, many rpms do not > get rebuilt for anything else than cooker-i586. I do have scripts that > allow easy rebuilding of packages for other targets, but as I'm not able > to thouroughly test every package, I'm hesitant to do uploads unless you > confirm they should all be backported. If they do not, we also need a > way to inform the bots on which targets the srpm should be build.
Comments, please. This question is critical if you still want to get 2006.0 backports of PLF packages (or want not to). > I also made a (hacky, unfortunately) bot, which rebuilds plf packages > for x86_64 distros in iurt-style chroot environment. It currently builds > packages for target if the i586 equivalent is also present (e.g. if the > rpm is present in 2006.0-i586, rebuild it also for 2006.0-x86_64, and if > present in cooker-i586 => rebuild for cooker-x86_64), but as there now > are many packages that should be backported on i586 but are not, this is > not a good way to detect if the x86_64 backport is needed. I just uploaded first 69 x86_64 rpms to 2006.0 and x86_64 reps built by this bot. -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
