Discussion:
dovecot 2.4 for 32-bit arm architectures
Add Reply
Noah Meyerhans
2025-03-13 22:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi debian-arm. Dovecot 2.4 (currently in experimental) is not currently
building for 32-bit architectures, including i386 and the 32-bit arm*
architectures. The issues are probably related to the 64-bit time_t
changes, but I haven't looked deeply.

My inclination is to not fix dovecot for these architectures, which are
clearly not supported upstream and unlikely to be used for mail servers
in the future, and support only 64-bit architectures for trixie
(including arm64, of course). But I figured I'd raise the issue here in
case anybody is particularly motivated to fix the issues and send me a
patch.

You can see an example armhf build failure at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=dovecot&arch=armhf&ver=1%3A2.4.0%2Bdfsg1-1%7Eexp3&stamp=1741712042&raw=0

noah
Arnd Bergmann
2025-03-21 12:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Noah Meyerhans
Hi debian-arm. Dovecot 2.4 (currently in experimental) is not currently
building for 32-bit architectures, including i386 and the 32-bit arm*
architectures. The issues are probably related to the 64-bit time_t
changes, but I haven't looked deeply.
My inclination is to not fix dovecot for these architectures, which are
clearly not supported upstream and unlikely to be used for mail servers
in the future, and support only 64-bit architectures for trixie
(including arm64, of course). But I figured I'd raise the issue here in
case anybody is particularly motivated to fix the issues and send me a
patch.
You can see an example armhf build failure at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=dovecot&arch=armhf&ver=1%3A2.4.0%2Bdfsg1-1%7Eexp3&stamp=1741712042&raw=0
The build failure is a check for the 'uoff_t' definition, which
does indeed seem related to the 64-bit time_t, but would in theory
cause problems without that as well.

There is upstream code specifically to handle different definitions
for off_t here, so I would assume that they are trying to support
32-bit still. I couldn't easily see what exactly went wrong, but
it's probably a oneline fix.

Arnd

Loading...