Hi John,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Folks,
My take on current progress is that we have a lot of packages with bits still
needing to head upstream, and we have a number of package deltas between v5
and v7, but the core set of packages we
El Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:39:58 +
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com escribió:
Hi John,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jon Masters
jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Folks,
My take on current progress is that we have a lot of packages with
bits still needing to head upstream, and we
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
El Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:39:58 +
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com escribió:
Hi John,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jon Masters
jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Folks,
My take on current progress is that we
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Once the gcc/glibc fixes are in we're good to go. I'd not looked at
pushing them upstream as I'd figured the people who'd been dealing
with them likely had them in hand and knew a lot more of the issues in
hand than I
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 02:55 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
Folks,
My take on current progress is that we have a lot of packages with
bits still needing to head upstream, and we have a number of package
deltas between v5 and v7, but the core set of packages we actually
need to get a minimal build
On 11/17/2011 11:04 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I agree with going with what we've currently got package-wise. But
saying we should start building today or get Koji running...tomorrow
is missing the point.
We're ready to go the moment we have finished these tasks:
- the gcc/glibc issues are
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:03 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 11/17/2011 11:04 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I agree with going with what we've currently got package-wise. But
saying we should start building today or get Koji running...tomorrow
is missing the point.
:) I'm not so sure. I think the
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:55 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:48 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:03 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
- we've pruned the package sets back to the same core
I think this is straightforward. We include in the repos only
I've taken a moment to ask one of my pretty chart scripts to dump a
list of all SRPMs that are nvr-identical in both v5 and v7
repos-so-far. I put the list here:
http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/arm-v5-v7-same.txt
The list doesn't include a few key SRPMs we know we'll need, though,
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 22:21 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
I've taken a moment to ask one of my pretty chart scripts to dump a
list of all SRPMs that are nvr-identical in both v5 and v7
repos-so-far. I put the list here:
http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/arm-v5-v7-same.txt
The list
El Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:48:06 -0500
Jon Masters j...@redhat.com escribió:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:03 -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 11/17/2011 11:04 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I agree with going with what we've currently got package-wise. But
saying we should start building today or get
El Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:42:07 -0500
Jon Masters j...@redhat.com escribió:
Since I love replying to myself...I'm thinking out loud here because I
want us to have an agreed series of simple instructions that reduce
this final phase down to a straightforward exercise. I know Dennis
thinks the
Hi Chris,
There was some dialog on IRC recently about compile flags. As near as I
can see it, we ought to be consistent in r-r-c between v5 and v7. Did I
miss something in particular? Just tying up some loose ends here.
Jon.
___
arm mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
