Existing Charms: Can we get ppc64 PPA's built?

José Antonio Rey jose at ubuntu.com
Thu Apr 16 18:57:16 UTC 2015

We need to have in kind that these are packaged by individuals or teams who
may do it in their spare time, hence the lack of ppc64. If we remove them,
what would be the consequences? Are the packages in the archives the same
version as the PPA, or does the PPA provide us with a newer version? If
there are no downsides, removing them would be fine.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015, 13:40 Johnny Shieh <jshieh at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  The following bugs, identified internally by Canonical, reference a
> situation where the charm relies on a PPA.
> There is an existing PPA for the x86 architecture, but not one for
> ppc64el.  Can someone look and see if they can
> generate the appropriate ppc64el PPA for the following charms:
> Hive:
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/hive/+bug/1356086
> drupal6
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/drupal6/+bug/1371339
>  Remove of reference to non-existent PPA actually results in a successful
> install on Power.
>  Should the reference to PPA be removed?
> nginx-passengar
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/nginx-passenger/+bug/1387694
> apache2-passenger
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/apache2-passenger/+bug/1388984
> charmp-helper
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/phpmyadmin/+bug/1350023
> Johnny Shieh
> CTO Office - Software Defined Systems
> jshieh at us.ibm.com
> Mobile: 512-680-1375
> --
> Juju mailing list
> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20150416/db990237/attachment.html>

More information about the Juju mailing list