omalleys(a)msu.edu wrote:
Nice chart!
I was poking through the diffs, and in a number of spots
It shows:
-ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9
+ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9 armv7hl
I thought we were adding armv5tel as well when we added armv7hl or
does armv5tel not need the ExclusiveArch tag?
Should we not simply add %{arm} and catch all variants?
d.marlin
========
Quoting DJ Delorie <dj(a)redhat.com>:
> Based on an internal mirror of the various repositories (i.e. it might
> be slightly out of date), I wrote a script to compare the SRPMs
> (diff'ing the contents) generated during stage4 with SRPMs from other
> sources (mostly, F15 official ones, but also from SRPMs still in the
> builder queues). Color coded with diffs and stats:
>
>
http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html
>
> (uses javascript to show/hide diffs)
>
> Summary:
>
> 99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
> upstream to diff against)
>
> 3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
> CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
> development)
>
> 5 SRPMs match rawhide
>
> 11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not upstream
>
> 0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content
>
> 30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an older
> rawhide)
>
> 4704 SRPMs match GA or updates (name and content match)
>
>
> Note: the HTML file is about 1 MB
> _______________________________________________
> arm mailing list
> arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
>
>