Hi, we have still the situation that the current python-cryptography, having rather heavy rust ecosystem dependencies, cannot be built on some debian-ports architectures.
This situation is not likely to go away: • some ports are unlikely to meet the dependencies soon • new ports won’t meet them at first even if they may meet them later (riscv64 and loong64 now meet them) For the t64 transition, I *think* I can just binNMU the last version that worked and porter-upload that, but that’s not a workable long-term solution, especially when python transitions come, etc. Is there a chance your team could fork the old python-cryptography source package (3.4.8-2) and do something like: • rename its python3-cryptography binary package to python3-cryptography-rustless or something • let that Provide python3-cryptography in the same version Making python3-cryptography-rustless available on all arches has the benefit that people can test that their code will work on ports arches without having to bother installing one of them. I’m not entirely sure that having python3-cryptography-rustless Provides python3-cryptography, then other packages B-D/Depends python3-cryptography will work; IIRC, there was something about the first alternative must not be virtual and buildds won’t use second+ alternatives. In that case, we’ll instead need the python3-cryptography-rustless source package to build a second binary package python3-cryptography either as arch:all but in a lower version than the python-cryptography’s (if that’s okay), or as arch:any on just the affected architectures (which will end up being an annoying to maintain whitelist) that Depends python3-cryptography-rustless, to keep things installable on the buildds. With this in unstable proper, debian-ports will have a much easier job, and maintainers (both of the python3-cryptography ecosystem/packages and of software using it) can more easily test things work, and your team can apply whatever new policy changes, dh-* helpers, etc. to the 3.4.8-based package, and backport bugfixes, etc. (and perhaps there’s even an upstream fork?). The arches currently split as: • alpha 3.4.8-2 • hppa 3.4.8-2 • hurd-amd64 3.4.8-2 • hurd-arm64 unknown, probably 3.x • hurd-i386 3.4.8-2 • ia64 3.4.8-2 • loong64 41.0.7-5 • m68k 3.4.8-2 • powerpc 41.0.7-3 • ppc64 41.0.7-5 • sh4 3.4.8-2 • sparc64 41.0.7-5 • x32 38.0.4-4 (x32 seems to be lagging in the rust department, too…) Since this exists mostly to help d-ports, it would be fine to open an RC bug against it early to prevent it from showing up in releases, if desired. Thanks for considering, //mirabilos, helping out m68k for the time_t transition again -- When he found out that the m68k port was in a pretty bad shape, he did not, like many before him, shrug and move on; instead, he took it upon himself to start compiling things, just so he could compile his shell. How's that for dedication. -- Wouter, about my Debian/m68k revival
