Re: : IA64 ISOs based on Fedora Core 5

[Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1342 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 22:25 -0400, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> > I assume for the weekly snapshots of rawhide that you'll be putting
> > unique (eg date based) names on the isos so they can be readily
> > identified, else you're going to run into trouble tracking issues
> > across media sets. 
> 
> To be honest, I'm not convinced that weekly ISO builds are particularly
> useful -- we don't do that for rawhide on other architectures either.
> It's probably better just to encourage people to use rsync to keep up
> with rawhide, rather than downloading it all over again each week.
> 
> >  Do these isos correspond with FC5 or a random snapshot?
> 
> Rawhide for about a week leading up to March 20th was identical to FC5
> in all but the 'fedora-release' package. 
> 
> If making an IA64 'FC5' I'd be inclined to replace the fedora-release
> package too. In fact, you almost certainly want to do that anyway, since
> you'll be publishing the errata, and fedora-release contains the yum
> configuration.

That might be helpful:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187250

> Aside from the updates, the next task is building Extras and Livna for
> IA64, of course...

and who's going to do ATrpms? ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]