The binaries supplied by this package are: Package-List: escputil deb utils optional arch=any gimp-gutenprint deb graphics optional arch=any gutenprint-doc deb doc optional arch=all gutenprint-locales deb libs optional arch=all libgutenprint-common deb libs optional arch=all libgutenprint-dev deb libdevel optional arch=any libgutenprint-doc deb doc optional arch=all libgutenprint9 deb libs optional arch=any libgutenprintui2-2 deb libs optional arch=any libgutenprintui2-dev deb libdevel optional arch=any printer-driver-gutenprint deb graphics optional arch=any
Of those, only the driver itself appears to have rdepends beyond gutenprint: printer-driver-gutenprint Reverse Depends: gutenprint-doc ubuntu-mate-desktop ubuntu-mate-core ubuntu-budgie-desktop printer-driver-all-enforce printer-driver-all lubuntu-desktop cups-backend-bjnp Unfortunately, simply removing gutenprint's binaries on armhf looks like it would have broad repercussions. Someone involved in the desktop and/or printing stack maintenance will need to evaluate how to handle this issue. ** Description changed: 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 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 + 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. + * 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 <deb...@alteholz.de> Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:10:00 + -- Thorsten Alteholz <deb...@alteholz.de> 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. + 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 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2081090 Title: gutenprint FTBFS due to 64-bit restriction To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gutenprint/+bug/2081090/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
