Hi all! I pushed the packages that have been build over the past two weeks; please check that everything is there in the way it is expected: http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/8/ http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/

On 11.08.2008 22:17, Sebastian Vahl wrote: > Am Montag, 11. August 2008 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis: >> I pushed the packages that have been build over the past two weeks; >> please check that everything is there in the way it is expected: >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/8/ >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ >> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/ > Many ppc64 rpms are located inside the normal ppc repository. And the ppc64 > repository itself contains only one singel rpm. Is this indended? The first is afaik intended, as ppc64 just like x86_64 is biarch/multilib arch; PPCs system will just ignore the ppc64 packages. It's the same in Fedora; see http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/ppc/ http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Everything/... The latter IMHO is not intended, but likely the way the push scripts from Extras/EPEL work/are designed. Fedora at least ships the ppc64 rpms in a dedicated repo as well: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/9/ppc64/ http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Everything/... dwmw2, mschwendt?

Hi all! I pushed the packages that have been build over the past two weeks; please check that everything is there in the way it is expected: http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/8/ http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:56:37 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > I pushed the packages that have been build over the past two weeks; > please check that everything is there in the way it is expected: > > http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/8/ > http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ > http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/ What OS arch and release does this run on?

The pkg sizes for ppc and ppc64 in repoview are all zero. It's not like that with EPEL.

> The pkg sizes for ppc and > ppc64 in repoview are all zero. It's not like that with EPEL. Where exactly? Can't spot that.

Odd. On a quick looks it seems like it only happens in devel: http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/9/ppc/repoview... http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/ppc/os/repoview/ff... Maybe the special directory layout (to match the one from Fedora) created via symlinks (is there a better way?) is the reason for this problem (or part of it)?

$ rpm -qp --qf "%{archivesize}\n" mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm 0 $ rpm -qpi mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm |grep Host Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: bombadil.infradead.org

On 12.08.2008 16:25, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> $ rpm -qp --qf "%{archivesize}\n" mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm >> 0 >> >> $ rpm -qpi mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm |grep Host >> Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: bombadil.infradead.org > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/458817 Thx for tracking this down and getting Panu to fix it. I suppose we need to rebuild a bunch of packages (¹). But the buildsys is still down; I haven't heard anything from Pix yet. :-/

(¹) /me also wonders what Fedora will do; seems the mail from mschwendt was ignored by everyone up to now

Replying to an old mail: On 13.08.2008 19:04, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:56:54 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 12.08.2008 16:25, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>>> $ rpm -qp --qf "%{archivesize}\n" mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm >>>> 0 >>>> >>>> $ rpm -qpi mpd-0.13.2-1.fc10.src.rpm |grep Host >>>> Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: >>>> bombadil.infradead.org >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/458817 >> Thx for tracking this down and getting Panu to fix it. I suppose >> we need to rebuild a bunch of packages (¹). But the buildsys is >> still down; I haven't heard anything from Pix yet. :-/ > i386, x86_64: 3 packages > gfceu > ufoai-data > vdrsync > ppc, ppc64: 63 packages > -full list below- > >> (¹) /me also wonders what Fedora will do; seems the mail from >> mschwendt was ignored by everyone up to now > > Dunno whether those archivesize values are used in any important > piece of code. ;) There's also "size" and the "installed" size. > All three are added to the metadata. > [...] Seems Fedora ignores this? Or was this just forgotten over all the trouble in hte past weeks? What do we do?

Cu knurd