Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1114435

Bug#1018076: Fwd: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:19:30 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
> Package: release@debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org, debian-gtk-gnome@lists.debian.org
> 
> The plan is for Debian 12 to release with GNOME 43, which is currently in
> beta upstream. Beta versions of individual GNOME 43 packages are gradually
> making their way into either unstable if they are not disruptive, or
> experimental if they are. One of the new packages we need is an update
> to gjs, GNOME's JavaScript environment, which depends on mozjs102
> (Spidermonkey), the latest stable-branch of Mozilla's JavaScript engine.
> 
> mozjs102 makes more use of atomic operations, which are available on
> all architectures except for armel (because armel is ARMv5, and useful
> atomics are ARMv6 or ARMv7 instructions). This has led to a few different
> failure modes when building mozjs102 on armel (#1017979, #1017961).
> Even if we can solve them eventually, I think delaying GNOME 43 for the
> benefit of machines that are not powerful enough to run GNOME would be
> doing a disservice to our users.
> 
> So I think we need to be looking at the possibility of doing
> architecture-specific removals of gjs and dependent packages from armel.
> Based on prior experience of similar architecture-specific removals from
> s390x when mozjs was compiling-but-broken on that architecture, I think
> this would involve:
> 
> - removing gjs
> - removing gnome-shell (and its extensions)
> - removing gdm3
> - either hacking gnome-panel to be able to compile without gdm3, or
>   removing it
> - either hacking meta-gnome3 to install a non-GNOME display manager and
>   the GNOME Flashback desktop environment (basically a GNOME 2 fork)
>   instead of real GNOME, or leaving it unmodified but accepting that
>   gnome-core and therefore task-gnome-desktop are uninstallable on armel
> - disabling a subset of unit tests in src:ostree (which want gjs)
> - removing leaf apps written in JavaScript, such as polari
> 
> Obviously that's quite a bit of churn, mostly in packages that, in
> practice, have never been useful to run on the 2009-2010 plug computers
> that seem to be the main use-case for armel.
> 
> Is armel a realistic candidate for being a Debian 12 release
> architecture? It's already lacking other important packages like Firefox,
> and if it ceased to be treated as a release architecture very soon,
> then we wouldn't have to do all this work to coax GNOME into testing
> despite armel.
> 
> Or, failing that, is it still the release team's position that all task
> packages are required to be installable on all architectures, and that it
> is preferable to have a task install the wrong things rather than have
> it be uninstallable? If we could have task-gnome-desktop and gnome-core
> just be uninstallable on armel, and have the testing machinery accept
> and ignore that, then that would seem more honest than having to modify
> them like we did for s390x[1].
> 
> As with my previous work on mozjs + s390x, it is worth noting that I
> am not an ARM porter or an ARM desktop user, my only armel machine is
> no longer supported as of Debian 11 and was never able to run GNOME

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-08-25 12:30 +0200
  Bug#1018076: Fwd: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2022-08-25 12:40 +0200
  Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Renato Gallo <vmxevilstar@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 14:30 +0200
    Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-08-25 15:10 +0200
  Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Renato Gallo <vmxevilstar@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 15:10 +0200
  Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2022-08-25 20:20 +0200
  Bug#1018076: Add depends to armv6-support Bastien Roucariès <bastien.roucaries@cyu.fr> - 2022-08-27 18:00 +0200
    Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-08-30 15:00 +0200
      Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-08-30 22:30 +0200
        Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-08-31 06:50 +0200
          Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-08-31 11:30 +0200
            Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-09-01 11:00 +0200
  Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Jeremy Bicha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> - 2022-08-31 13:00 +0200
    Bug#1018076: transition: gjs and gnome-shell likely to be removed from armel Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-08-31 13:20 +0200
  Bug#1018076: mini-transition: gjs built against mozjs102 Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-09-25 15:20 +0200
    Bug#1018076: mini-transition: gjs built against mozjs102 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2022-09-25 15:50 +0200
      Bug#1018076: mini-transition: gjs built against mozjs102 Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2022-09-25 17:20 +0200

csiph-web