mismatch of versions between arches

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Donnerstag, den 12.05.2005, 09:28 +0200 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:19:14 +1000, Colin Charles wrote:

> > > > I reckon as FC-4 becomes near, we need a mass rebuild on all arch's, one
> > > > way or another
> > > 
> > > Or just a rebuild of packages, which have not been built with gcc4 yet.
> > 
> > Do these still exist on x86, as well?
> 
> Almost certainly, because the Extras Development repository was filled
> with FC3 builds, and that way ABI problems creep in (like the crashes seen
> with Inkscape).

Another minor argument for a mass rebuild and a note to all: It seems
that during the initial rebuild some packages for x86_64 were not build,
but the information never made it to the wiki or bugzilla. 

Just look at:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/x86_64/

There are a lot of old FC3 packages (those older than around Apr 11, see
http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedora.redhat.com/linux/extras/development/x86_64/?C=M;O=A
for another view) -- a lot more than in the i386-devel-tree

Just a quick look did turn up a lot of packages like xforms, tidy,
tuxpaint, celestia and probably a lot more. Their FC3-versions are still
in devel for x86_64 because the inital devel-build for x86_64 failed.
But it seems the i386 version were build on the initial devel rebuild...

Normally those failed x86_64 builds should have appeared on
Extras/FC4RebuildFailures in the Wiki and later in Bugzilla, but there
were only three packages on that list for x86_64 iirc. Not the ones
mentioned above.

I'll try to look at this next week to fix it before FC4...

CU
thl