Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
Hi, On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 10:18:13 +0200 Hubert Chathi wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:49:15 +0200, Evangelos Ribeiro Tzaras said: > > [...] > > > - Drop the javascript bindings for olm (libjs-olm). The only reverse > > dependency of libjs-olm is libjs-matrix-sdk which itself has no > > reverse dependencies. > > FWIW, libjs-matrix-js-sdk upstream is looking into switching to the new > rust implementation of olm, so some future version may stop using > libjs-olm anyways. But I'm not sure of the timeline for that. Good to know :) > > Aside from that, I'd like to look into updating emscripten somehow, but > I'm currently on VAC so I won't be able to do it for a little while. So > in the mean time, I don't have any objection to someone doing something > to resolve the situation temporarily. Alright, nmudiff following shortly (which removes the javascript bindings). -- Cheers, Evangelos PGP: B938 6554 B7DD 266B CB8E 29A9 90F0 C9B1 8A6B 4A19
Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:49:15 +0200, Evangelos Ribeiro Tzaras said: [...] > - Drop the javascript bindings for olm (libjs-olm). The only reverse > dependency of libjs-olm is libjs-matrix-sdk which itself has no > reverse dependencies. FWIW, libjs-matrix-js-sdk upstream is looking into switching to the new rust implementation of olm, so some future version may stop using libjs-olm anyways. But I'm not sure of the timeline for that. Aside from that, I'd like to look into updating emscripten somehow, but I'm currently on VAC so I won't be able to do it for a little while. So in the mean time, I don't have any objection to someone doing something to resolve the situation temporarily. -- Hubert Chathi -- https://www.uhoreg.ca/ Jabber: hub...@uhoreg.ca -- Matrix: @uhoreg:matrix.org PGP/GnuPG key: 4096R/F24C F749 6C73 DDB8 DCB8 72DE B2DE 88D3 113A 1368
Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
Hi, On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:33:55 +0200 Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi, > > I didn't know that there was some coordination required between binaryen and > emscripten. Nobody talked about that in the past. Sorry to ditch your request > but I don't plan to maintain emscripten. Thanks for your reply and good to know. > The only reason why I introduced > binaryen and wabt to Debian was to compile web assembly code from source in > ublock-origin. Apart from that I am not really involved in the Javascript > ecosystem either. I think it is best if someone takes over emscripten and > binaryen and maintains them together. > Having looked a bit into olm and emscripten I can imagine a few possible solutions: - binaryen is a build dep for emscripten "only" for running the tests (). This suggest to me, that it should be possible to get a build going without the tests. I've tried running building with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck and dropping the build dep on binaryen, but this alone didn't stop the build from failing. d/rules is rather complex beast and I haven't managed to rip everything "unneeded" out. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will have more success.. Although I'm not sure how good of an idea it would be to simply skip the tests. - Drop the javascript bindings for olm (libjs-olm). The only reverse dependency of libjs-olm is libjs-matrix-sdk which itself has no reverse dependencies. - Have someone maintain binaryen and emscripten and always upgrade in lockstep, as the sources [0] suggest, that the actual and "expected" binaryen version at most differ by one version number. Maybe there are other ideas of how to resolve this. If no other solution presents itself I'm inclined to drop libjs-olm in a NMU with DELAYED/7. [0] https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/emscripten/-/blob/debian/latest/tools/building.py#L1475 Cheers -- Evangelos PGP: B938 6554 B7DD 266B CB8E 29A9 90F0 C9B1 8A6B 4A19 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
Hi, I didn't know that there was some coordination required between binaryen and emscripten. Nobody talked about that in the past. Sorry to ditch your request but I don't plan to maintain emscripten. The only reason why I introduced binaryen and wabt to Debian was to compile web assembly code from source in ublock-origin. Apart from that I am not really involved in the Javascript ecosystem either. I think it is best if someone takes over emscripten and binaryen and maintains them together. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
Dear maintainers, On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:44:43 +0200 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64. > > > > > Install main build dependencies (apt-based resolver) > > > > > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > > emscripten : Depends: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > > apt-get failed. > > > The full build log is available from: > http://qa-logs.debian.net/2022/05/25/olm_3.2.11~dfsg-1_unstable.log > Since emscripten was recently orphaned [0] I was wondering if the matrix team or the binaryen maintainer (which I cc'ed) would be interested in taking over (ideally before emscripten gets autoremoved)? I'd like for olm (and by extension emscripten) to not get removed, because it will trigger autoremoval for chatty[1], which I have the pleasure of maintaining. I'm afraid I'm not able to step up myself here, because I don't like javascript and know nothing about the ecosystem and tooling. Anyway: Thank you for your work on maintaining olm! [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1013374 [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/chatty Cheers, -- Evangelos PGP: B938 6554 B7DD 266B CB8E 29A9 90F0 C9B1 8A6B 4A19 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1011712: olm: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependency: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed
Source: olm Version: 3.2.11~dfsg-1 Severity: serious Justification: FTBFS Tags: bookworm sid ftbfs User: lu...@debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-20220525 ftbfs-bookworm Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part (hopefully): > +--+ > | Install package build dependencies > | > +--+ > > > Setup apt archive > - > > Merged Build-Depends: cmake, debhelper-compat (= 13), dh-sequence-python3, > doctest-dev, node-jasmine, pandoc, pkg-kde-tools, python3-all-dev, > python3-cffi, python3-docutils, python3-future, python3-pygments, > python3-pytest, python3-setuptools, build-essential, fakeroot, brotli, dpkg > (>= 1.20.1), emscripten (>= 3.1.4~), pigz, uglifyjs (>= 3) > Filtered Build-Depends: cmake, debhelper-compat (= 13), dh-sequence-python3, > doctest-dev, node-jasmine, pandoc, pkg-kde-tools, python3-all-dev, > python3-cffi, python3-docutils, python3-future, python3-pygments, > python3-pytest, python3-setuptools, build-essential, fakeroot, brotli, dpkg > (>= 1.20.1), emscripten (>= 3.1.4~), pigz, uglifyjs (>= 3) > dpkg-deb: building package 'sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy' in > '/<>/apt_archive/sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy.deb'. > Ign:1 copy:/<>/apt_archive ./ InRelease > Get:2 copy:/<>/apt_archive ./ Release [960 B] > Ign:3 copy:/<>/apt_archive ./ Release.gpg > Get:4 copy:/<>/apt_archive ./ Sources [602 B] > Get:5 copy:/<>/apt_archive ./ Packages [589 B] > Fetched 2151 B in 0s (158 kB/s) > Reading package lists... > Reading package lists... > > Install main build dependencies (apt-based resolver) > > > Installing build dependencies > Reading package lists... > Building dependency tree... > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created > or been moved out of Incoming. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > emscripten : Depends: binaryen (< 105+) but 106-1 is to be installed > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > apt-get failed. The full build log is available from: http://qa-logs.debian.net/2022/05/25/olm_3.2.11~dfsg-1_unstable.log All bugs filed during this archive rebuild are listed at: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-20220525;users=lu...@debian.org or: https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=na=ign=7=7=only=ftbfs-20220525=lu...@debian.org=1=1=1=1#results A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! If you reassign this bug to another package, please marking it as 'affects'-ing this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with mine so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime.
