FC1 in archive missing a bunch of RPMs?
jmforbes at linuxtx.org
Tue Oct 27 04:11:33 UTC 2015
Also, intel wasn't shipping x86_64 systems at the time, FC1 was pretty
specifically AMD64, and there was a lot of weirdness back then.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Justin Forbes <jmforbes at linuxtx.org>
> FC1 32bit was a little bit different. Technically x86_64 was a secondary
> arch at the time, in fact the RH build system couldn't get everything
> together and the ISOs were built on my home system. By FC2, this wasn't an
> issue anymore. I would not be surprised if the archives were a bit off as
> the official FC1 x86_64 was completed and pushed a bit after the official
> FC1 i686 release.
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Gary Gatling <gsgatlin at ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Adam Williamson <
>> adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> I happened to notice last night that:
>>> seems very incomplete - it's like it's truncated, it has everything
>>> alphabetically up to 'beecrypt' and nothing after. Compare to the i386
>>> dir, which looks full:
>> I had problems with various things doing 64 bit installs from FC1-FC4
>> when I tried it a couple of years ago. But fedora 5 onward seemed to work
>> ok for me. I have all the fedora releases in KVM vms in case I need to go
>> back and look at stuff. I was able to do 32 bit installs of FC1-4. Its just
>> the 64 bit parts that didn't seem to work for various reasons IIRC. From
>> fedora 5 to present I was able to make 32 and 64 bit vms. But then again
>> maybe I just wasn't trying hard enough with those very early releases.
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel