On 06/23/2018 02:05 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
I've submitted the patch upstream, I hope it fares better than my last attempt.
Thanks for that, it looks like the maintainer accepted the package.
I took the patch into today's rawhide build and it seems to
have completed.
I have filed at
I've submitted the patch upstream, I hope it fares better than my last attempt.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:45 PM Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
> I applied the patch, enabled i686 in the spec file and after almost
> 5h, the build completed successfully. I could try to prepare a
> submission in a few hours, but given that the last (and only) time I
> submitted a patch to the
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:39 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. Once someone verifies this fixes the i686
> problem and makes an attempt to submit it upstream I will see about
> applying it to the tree.
I applied the patch, enabled i686 in the spec file and after almost
5h, the build
On 06/22/2018 08:37 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:50 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Fedora rawhide has not had any kernel build available for i686 for a
week now. It was disabled in a rebase due to part of the build process
segfaulting.
The bug causing the segfault is not
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:37:15 -0600
Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:50 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> wrote:
> > Fedora rawhide has not had any kernel build available for i686 for a
> > week now. It was disabled in a rebase due to part of the build
> > process segfaulting.
>
> The bug
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:50 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Fedora rawhide has not had any kernel build available for i686 for a
> week now. It was disabled in a rebase due to part of the build process
> segfaulting.
The bug causing the segfault is not specific to i386. It could happen
on any
On 22 June 2018 at 05:29, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> I encourage you to file a ticket with FESCO.
>
> I was hoping this mail would generate some more discussion perhaps with
> other ideas than I've come up with.
>
> If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed soon,
> I'll
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:55:16 -0500
Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rex Dieter
> wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> >> If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed
> >> soon, I'll file ticket with FESCO asking for i686 arch to be
> >> removed
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:49:04AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> > If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed soon,
> > I'll file ticket with FESCO asking for i686 arch to be removed from
> > main koji and relegated to a secondary koji instance, so
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
>> If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed soon,
>> I'll file ticket with FESCO asking for i686 arch to be removed from
>> main koji and relegated to a secondary koji instance, so i686 doesn't
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed soon,
> I'll file ticket with FESCO asking for i686 arch to be removed from
> main koji and relegated to a secondary koji instance, so i686 doesn't
> block maintainers going forward...
Not sure it's as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:36:30AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 01:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > The kernel change that introduced the i686 build problem was just a
> > rebase between 2 arbitrary pre-release git snapshots. I don't really
> > a compelling justification to
On 06/21/2018 01:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
The kernel change that introduced the i686 build problem was just a
rebase between 2 arbitrary pre-release git snapshots. I don't really
a compelling justification to rebase to a known broken snapshot,
without allowing time for x86 SIG to resolve
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Having said all this, the message about brokenness on x86 SIG mailing
> list doesn't appear to be treated with the urgency I think it needs,
> givin the ripple effect it has from a critical path package. There were
> a few messages the day after it was reported, and
Fedora rawhide has not had any kernel build available for i686 for a
week now. It was disabled in a rebase due to part of the build process
segfaulting.
commit 861ae54010f0dae5c988105b6179a8f2442851e7
Author: Laura Abbott
Date: Thu Jun 14 10:57:47 2018 -0700
Don't build for i686
16 matches
Mail list logo
