I have a feeling this can be closed, seeing as there's likely not enough information to reproduce the issue, we're probably not going to get more info since it's a year old, and whatever it is may have been solved by an update since then.

I have a feeling this can just be closed, seeing as it's a year old hardware issue, it might even have been solved by kernel updates or something.

Hmm, there's some weird versioning in the tags on jitsi. The building document didn't even exist at 5633, and the only two versions tagged past that are in a different format r2.14.695 and r2.14.721, these two versions do have the build doc claiming it can use jdk11. Definitely looks like a project on the tail end of it's lifecycle though as stated previously, in the ReadMe it states:

Jitsi Desktop is the heritage of Jitsi Meet. While some components are still used in e.g. Jigasi, the project is not actively developed anymore. Improvements, bugfixes and builds are entirely based on community contributions.

Looks like the icedtea-web in the repository is now up to jdk17 and if we update to the newest version of jitsi (https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/blob/master/docs/building.md) it is now using jdk11. We can probably update that and close this task I would think.

Looks like it does still depend on binder, and either ashmem or (since 1.2.1) memfd (see https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Waydroid#Kernel_Modules). I don't know if memfd is still as problematic as ashmem but I assume binder is still an issue. These two modules were previously discussed in T4904 with respect to Anbox and are part of the reason it wasn't included. I'm guessing this probably cannot be included for the same reasons.

Made requested changes (except removing HOME_DIR=1 as that does not appear to be set by default)

Properly alphabetized deps, cleaned up patches, build, and install

In D13877#238087, @Staudey wrote:

Started reviewing this but then got a little sidetracked, so I will just post my preliminary observations before I go to bed

In T10441#199519, @ur5us wrote:

Thanks @Icosahunter & @Staudey.

In D13822#237333, @Staudey wrote:

In D13822#237323, @Icosahunter wrote:

In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Ok, the links are in there, let me know if I need to reformat them, it looked like there wasn't a standard for that whem providing links based on another recent update I saw.

Yeah, no, like unfortunately a lot when it comes to formatting patches (and package.yml's) there's not necessarily a rule/standard here. Probably wouldn't hurt if we could at some point write additional documentation to that end (and first discuss and agree to some common standards).

FWIW in this case, or other cases when there are A LOT of changelog, I would be happy to accept a link to a single page, where all changelogs are listed, in this case for example https://www.sqlite.org/chronology.html (better if one can link directly to the relevant part of the page, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be possible here; that is, link directly to 3.40.0, so when new items are added it still leads you directly to where you want to look)

Since you've already put in the effort to link all separate changelogs, I've just taken the liberty of formatting it a bit differently (it's a huge collection of links, so I don't know if what I arrived at is necessarily better, I just preferred it a tiny bit).

I'm going to wait until after the sync to merge this, I think, to get some more testing in. Personally I've been using this patch for a week and haven't noticed any issues, but I don't use THAT many of the reverse dependencies on a regular basis.

That does look much neater

In D13822#237298, @Staudey wrote:

We're going to need a changelog / release notes, or a link to them.

Ok, no problem, I'll add those!

Do I need to add that link in the summary or something Staudey or did you just need it for reference?

I know this is closed, but seeing as it's quite old, if sentiment has changed and this package can be approved, I'd be interested in packaging and maintaining it.

I have the package for this working now.

I've submitted an update for this.

Also, I am willing to maintain this, I'll probably start working on packaging it very soon.

In D13746#235806, @algent wrote:

Need another rebuild.

Rebuilt package to update files

I have applied all the suggested changes, so I believe™ this package should be good to go.

Changes made

Removed second component.
Removed redundant dependencies.
Added trailing newline.

Thanks! Yes I followed the steps in Building a Package, I'll take a look at the Submitting section and get to work on that. Thanks again!

I'm wiling to maintain this. With some help from the forum I just got a package build working, I've also got the MAINTAINER.md. What next steps do I need to take? Thanks!