On Fri, 17 May 2024 09:08:41 -0400 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2024 14:10:44 +0100 Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > > Package: ftp.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > X-Debbugs-CC: nil...@debian.org, r...@debian.org, vasu...@debian.org > > > > Hi, > > > > As per https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1070768 with > > the agreement of the maintainers I have NMUed bpfcc/0.29.1+ds-1.1 to > > remove ppc64el, as it has been failing to build for months and has kept > > the package out of testing. > > Please remove the ppc64el binary packages. > > This is going to be a little more complicated than that. > > Checking reverse dependencies... > # Broken Depends: > bpfcc: python3-bpfcc > bpftrace: bpftrace > golang-github-iovisor-gobpf: golang-github-iovisor-gobpf-dev > oci-seccomp-bpf-hook: oci-seccomp-bpf-hook > > For the arch: all packages like python3-bpfcc, there's nothing to do. For the > arch specific packages, bpftrace and oci-seccomp-bpf-hook, they will have to be > removed first. > > bpftrace should be just another rm bug. Once bpfcc is removed, it should no > longer build on ppc64el. oci-seccomp-bpf-hook on the other hand seems to be > more complicated. It does not appear that oci-seccomp-bpf-hook build-depends > on libbpfcc-dev, so even if it's ppc64el binary is removed, it would just > reappear after the next upload.
I think for oci-seccomp-bpf-hook it's a transitive build dep, oci- seccomp-bpf-hook build deps on golang-github-iovisor-gobpf-dev which depends on libbpfcc-dev so it gets pulled in. So I think two RM bugs, one each for these two source packages, should be enough. I'll file them shortly. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
