I tried building it too on armhf and encountered no issue. Looking at my analysis results, libgutenprint-dev did not build and was therefore not analyzed and libgutenprintui2-dev did not have an ABI incompatibility.
This means that the library should go through the t64 transition. If you consider this a big issue, someone may be able to fix the build and therefore get analysis results as it's maybe only a matter of ensuring "stp_vars_t" is defined before being used. I must mention that I won't be able to try doing that before Thursday and I'm not sure I still have any of the systems used for the analysis. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to gutenprint in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2081090 Title: gutenprint FTBFS due to 64-bit restriction Status in gutenprint package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: The FTBFS[0] report shows an issue for gutenprint: The following packages have unmet dependencies: sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy : Depends: architecture-is-64-bit but it is not installable E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. apt-get failed. E: Package installation failed The problem is that the package now no longer builds for armhf[1], which is 32-bit. This appears to have been an intentional change by Debian: gutenprint (5.3.4.20220624T01008808d602-2) unstable; urgency=medium * do not build this package on 32bit architectures anymore Closes: #1064088 Closes: #1064089 There was no patch attached to #1064089, so I can not reproduce the problems mentioned in #1064088. I am fed up with this poorly done transition, so I won't spend more time with this. Sorry 32bit people. -- Thorsten Alteholz <[email protected]> Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:10:00 +0200 The transition referenced in the changelog is the time_t transition performed late last cycle; presumably then reversing this change in Ubuntu would merely exchange this FTBFS for a different one. (Perhaps one avenue of solution would be to create the requested time_t patch for #1064088?) The question is then if the armhf binary for gutenprint was deleted from the archive, would that result in other issues within the printing stack? 0: https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20240912-oracular-oracular.html#ubuntu-server-pkgset 1: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gutenprint/5.3.4.20220624T01008808d602-3/+build/28712797 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gutenprint/+bug/2081090/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
