Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

[Robert Hagan]

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(a)lists.infradead.org&gt; wrote:
>  Send Fedora-ppc mailing list submissions to
>         fedora-ppc(a)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(a)lists.infradead.org
>
>  You can reach the person managing the list at
>         fedora-ppc-owner(a)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(a)danny.cz&gt;
>  To: fedora-ppc(a)lists.infradead.org
>  Subject: Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
>  Message-ID: <1276031104.2408.47.camel(a)eagle.danny.cz&gt;
>  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(a)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(a)lists.infradead.org
>  http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-ppc
>
>
>  End of Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4
>  *****************************************
>  


-- 
Robert J. Hagan
HaganRJ(a)State.gov
Mil: robert.hagan(a)iraq.centcom.mil
DSN: 318-864 0703, COM: [phone]
mobile: AsiaCell: [phone],  [phone]
GvSMS: [phone]
SIPR-only: Robert.Hagan(a)s-iraq.centcom.smil.mil

Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

[Geoff]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:58:55 +0300, Robert Hagan <roberthagan(a)gmail.com&gt;
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(a)lists.infradead.org&gt;
>  wrote:
> > Send Fedora-ppc mailing list submissions to
> >        fedora-ppc(a)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(a)lists.infradead.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >        fedora-ppc-owner(a)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(a)danny.cz&gt;
> > To: fedora-ppc(a)lists.infradead.org
> > Subject: Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
> > Message-ID: <1276031104.2408.47.camel(a)eagle.danny.cz&gt;
> > 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(a)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(a)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

Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

[Geoff]

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(a)p0wdr.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:58:55 +0300, Robert Hagan
> <roberthagan(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  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(a)lists.infradead.org&gt;
> > wrote:
> >> Send Fedora-ppc mailing list submissions to
> >>        fedora-ppc(a)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(a)lists.infradead.org
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>        fedora-ppc-owner(a)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(a)danny.cz&gt;
> >> To: fedora-ppc(a)lists.infradead.org
> >> Subject: Re: Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
> >> Message-ID: <1276031104.2408.47.camel(a)eagle.danny.cz&gt;
> >> 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(a)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(a)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

Fedora-ppc Digest, Vol 69, Issue 4

[Geoff Levand]

Hi,

On 06/09/2010 12:45 PM, Geoff wrote:
>  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 found keeping Fedora installable on the PS3 and PMAC G5 a
real bitch that needed constant attention.  Few users were
testing anaconda on ppc64, and no anaconda devs were.

I gave up maintaining anaconda since there were no ppc64
package repos for 13.

-Geoff