On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:55:21 +0200, Edmund Lodewijks wrote:
On 2026/10/18 16:31, Niko Tyni wrote:As for the Debian situation, I am not sure what should be done. Gregor feels for taking the one patch idea (minimal), you think the other one would be the right thing to do, but perhaps only after a change.FWIW I think the IPC::SharedMem approach looks like the right thing to do here. I also agree with Gregor that the 'IPC::SharedMem::stat'->new->unpack($data) part in the patch looks a bit out of place and should probably be replaced with a call to IPC::SharedMem::stat() that does the same thing.
If Niko suggests to go the IPC::SharedMem path (and if we have one clear upstream pull request that can be converted to a clean Debian patch) I'm happy to go this way -- that's why I asked for additional opinions from people who understand the situation better than me :)
(Thanks Niko!)
Alternatively - just as a question - that architecture could just be disabled for this package? Would that break any deployments that we know of?
That's a very last-resort option; and breakage also occurs one other (non-release but still) architectures.
Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
