Am 01.08.2015 um 23:05 schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 07/28/2015 06:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Actually, reproducable builds wrt. docs have been subject to Fedora
Packaging since Fedora day #1 and repeatedly have been subject to
discussions of details (e.g. doxygen repeatedly had introduced docs
On 07/28/2015 06:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Actually, reproducable builds wrt. docs have been subject to Fedora
> Packaging since Fedora day #1 and repeatedly have been subject to
> discussions of details (e.g. doxygen repeatedly had introduced docs
> breakages)
>
> Packages which do not compl
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
wrote:
> 2015-07-28 5:58 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer :
>> On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>>
>>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>>
>> No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A l
Excerpts from Peter Robinson's message of 2015-07-28 18:01 +10:00:
> This is completely NOT appropriate, it breaks on secondary arches
> where they then end up with no documentation due to the lack of any
> x86_64. Please DO NOT do this and please revert the change on any
> packages you might have
On 07/28/2015 10:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages
give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*
arc
2015-07-28 5:03 GMT-03:00 Peter Robinson :
>>> %ifarch x86_64
>>> %package doc
>>> BuildArch: noarch
>>> ...
>>> %endif
>>
>> This looks like a very wise way of handling it. Actually, while debugging
>
> It's not, it breaks all secondary architectures.
>
>> it, I found that the translated docume
2015-07-28 5:58 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer :
> On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>
>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>
> No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages
> give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*
On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages
give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*
architecture.
There is an effort under way to chan
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
wrote:
> 2015-07-27 22:34 GMT-03:00 Dan Callaghan :
>> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
>> +10:00:
>>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>>
>> Rather than trying to make Sphinx sp
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
> +10:00:
>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>
> Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
> every arch (which sounds like
On 07/28/2015 03:34 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
+10:00:
Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing
2015-07-27 22:34 GMT-03:00 Dan Callaghan :
> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
> +10:00:
>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>
> Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
> every arch (which sounds like fighting a l
Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05
+10:00:
> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing battle), could you just
build the doc subpack
2015-07-26 12:20 GMT-03:00 Sérgio Basto :
>
>
> On Dom, 2015-07-26 at 11:05 -0300, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
>> I had this build failure:
>>
>> Package:sagemath-6.5-7.fc22
>> Status: failed
>> Built by: pcpa
>> ID: 672175
>> Started:Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:52:10 UTC
>>
On Dom, 2015-07-26 at 11:05 -0300, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> I had this build failure:
>
> Package:sagemath-6.5-7.fc22
> Status: failed
> Built by: pcpa
> ID: 672175
> Started:Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:52:10 UTC
> Finished: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:57:28 UTC
>
> Close
I had this build failure:
Package:sagemath-6.5-7.fc22
Status: failed
Built by: pcpa
ID: 672175
Started:Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:52:10 UTC
Finished: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:57:28 UTC
Closed tasks:
-
Task 10480570 on arm04-builder10.arm.fedoraproject.org
Task Type: build
16 matches
Mail list logo
