On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:05:34AM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 04:28:54AM +0000, Peter Michael Green wrote: > > Package: pushpin > > Version: 1.36.0-1 > > Severity: serious > > > > The new version of pushpin added a dependency on jsonwebtoken, > > unfortunately jsonwebtoken depends in ring, which is only available > > on x86* and arm*. There is work upstream to make ring more > > portable but it seems unlikely to feature in a stable release before > > the bookworm freeze. > > > > Not sure what can be done about this, I tried reverting the > > upstream commit in question using a Debian patch, but it did not > > seem to revert cleanly. > > While I'm a huge fan of portable packages, I think in this case it's > better to just restrict the list of available architectures. I doubt > pushpin is actively used on any other architecture than amd64, in > practice.
The list of available architectures is automatically restricted by the non-available build dependencies. Keeping it "Architecture: any" will automatically (re)add it on architectures whenever they gain ring support. >... > So I'd say we should remove pushpin from the archive for all > architectures where librust-ring-0.16+default-dev is not available. Yes, since there are no reverse (build) dependencies "reportbug ftp.debian.org" to remove the stale binaries on "mips64el mipsel ppc64el s390x" is all that is needed. cu Adrian
