Greetings.
I'd like to know the status of mumble-server on armhf and arm64 and whether it
can be restored for those architectures, because mumble server is commonly run
on that hardware and is one one of the base expected programs for the FreedomBox
project which has a number of hardware targets for armhf and arm64.
https://freedombox.org/
If there's a way I can help let me know, and please keep me in the loop if
feasible.
Thanks
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
chris.kna...@coredump.us
(maintainer of mumble in Debian)
Adrian Bunk:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:56:40AM +0000, Peter Green wrote:
I recently became aware that mumble's build-dependencies were no longer
satisfiable on armhf due to a missing zeroc-ice. I looked at the build
logs for zeroc-ice and all were green. So I looked at the removal log
and found the following.
[Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 17:56:51 -0000] [ftpmaster: Scott Kitterman]
Removed the following packages from unstable:
libzeroc-ice-dev | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
libzeroc-ice3.7 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
libzeroc-icestorm3.7 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
mumble-server | 1.3.4-4 | arm64, armhf
php-zeroc-ice | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
python3-zeroc-ice | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-glacier2 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-ice-compilers | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-ice-utils | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-icebox | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-icebridge | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-icegrid | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
zeroc-icepatch2 | 3.7.8-2.1 | arm64, armhf
Closed bugs: 1031160
------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; openjfx no longer builds on arm64 and armhf, build-depends not available
This strikes me as strange in a couple of ways.
1. The only relationships of zeroc-ice to openjfx are in build-depends-indep
and in the binary dependencies of an arch all package. Afaict it is
perfectly
normal for build-depends-indep and the binary dependencies of arch all
packages to only be satisfiable on a subset of the architectures where
2. Only one of the two binaries from the mumble source package was removed.
Was this removal just a mistake? or was there a reason behind it that I am not
seeing?
As requestor of #1031160 I would say this was a mistake,
perhaps due to
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openjfx
Issues preventing migration:
∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes
beast2-mcmc/2.7.3+dfsg-1/arm64 uninstallable
∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes
josm/0.0.svn18646+dfsg-1/arm64 uninstallable
∙ ∙ removing openjfx/11.0.11+0-1.1/arm64 from testing makes
pdfsam/4.3.4-1/arm64 uninstallable
This will require a hint from the release team I have not yet requested,
since installability of binary-all packages is tested on amd64 and arm64
but there is no requirement that a binary-all package is installable on
arm64 and several are not.[1]
cu
Adrian
[1] https://release.debian.org/britney/testing_uninst.txt