Hi, On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 10:47 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/kcat/openal-soft/issues/1059 > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 at 09:33:52 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/core/device.cpp:12:54: error: static assertion failed > > 12 | > > static_assert(std::atomic<std::chrono::nanoseconds>::is_always_lock_free); > > If OpenAL now requires lock-free atomics, then I think that's going to be > unfixable on armel: if its upstream developer will not revert the change > (which I suspect they will not want to) then it will have to be removed > from armel.
That sounds a little too drastic to me. I think we should do a little more investigation to figure out what the actual underlying issue is. Maybe openal can be configured differently on armel and sh4. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
