Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
> Upstream has intent to look into compatibility with other
> architectures, next builds will remove some arch checks etc. So we
> will just stay inline with current policy for arch any, and possibly
> later restrict to a subset...
Great, thanks!
Look above that summary line
On August 19, 2016 10:24:33 AM EDT, "Gregory M. Kurtzer"
wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Gregory M. Kurtzer wrote:
>> > I thought that the idea
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Gregory M. Kurtzer wrote:
> > I thought that the idea generally is to not restrict by default and
> > possibly to let interested in porting to look at it. Policy 5.6.8
> >
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
>
> > Source: singularity-container
> > Version: 2.1.2-1
> > Severity: important
> > Justification: fails to build from source
>
> > Builds of singularity-container
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Gregory M. Kurtzer wrote:
> I thought that the idea generally is to not restrict by default and
> possibly to let interested in porting to look at it. Policy 5.6.8
> states "Specifying a list of architectures or architecture wildcards
> other than any is
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Source: singularity-container
> Version: 2.1.2-1
> Severity: important
> Justification: fails to build from source
> Builds of singularity-container for architectures other than x86 Linux
> have been failing at the configuration stage. The non-Linux
Source: singularity-container
Version: 2.1.2-1
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source
Builds of singularity-container for architectures other than x86 Linux
have been failing at the configuration stage. The non-Linux builds
complain that various CLONE_* flags, most
7 matches
Mail list logo