Your message dated Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:30:36 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1121002: libstreamvbyte: Consider disabling the build
on unsupported architectures
has caused the Debian Bug report #1121002,
regarding libstreamvbyte: Consider disabling the build on unsupported
architectures
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1121002: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1121002
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: libstreamvbyte
Severity: normal
Tags: ftbfs
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
User: [email protected]
Usertags: s390x
User: [email protected]
Usertags: hppa
User: [email protected]
Usertags: powerpc ppc64
User: [email protected]
Usertags: sparc64
Hello there!
Ubuntu is currently disabling the build on s390x, and I've also seen that some
other more obscure arches are not building in Debian.
Upstream clearly states in its README that big endian processors are currently
not supported. [1]
Would you consider disabling the build on unsupported architectures, so that
downstream distributions can avoid carrying a delta?
Thanks
Skia
[1]:
https://github.com/fast-pack/streamvbyte/blob/17cb90c495b4f8cf09dd151e705c896541ec5982/README.md?plain=1#L15
-- System Information:
Debian Release: forky/sid
APT prefers resolute
APT policy: (500, 'resolute'), (500, 'questing-updates'), (500, 'questing'),
(200, 'noble-updates'), (200, 'noble-backports'), (200, 'noble'), (100,
'resolute-proposed'), (100, 'questing-proposed')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 6.17.0-6-generic (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Greetings,
Florent 'Skia' Jacquet, on 2025-11-24:
> On 11/22/25 08:07, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Indeed, the consensus in Debian is that you shouldn't do
> > this if the build fails on those architectures (which is
> > does). For reference, see:
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#being-kind-to-porters
> > point 9.
>
> Thanks for the detailed reference, that makes perfect sense!
While we have often discussions in the Debian Med team about
disabling architecture that are at risk of causing substantial
maintainer work and have little relevance in scientific
computing context (namely anything that is not 64-bit
little-endian), I personally lean more toward being kind to
porters and I believe that the package is all good as is.
Therefore, I hereby close this bug entry.
(That being written, I won't go in the way of team members who
would take active steps to proceed to architecture removals.)
Have a nice day, :)
--
.''`. Étienne Mollier <[email protected]>
: :' : pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
`. `' sent from /dev/pts/1, please excuse my verbosity
`-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
