Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)
From: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 23:31:50 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 5678610.DvuYhMxLoT@bagend>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] ZHo8D6bidPxYS6LL@pc220518.home.grep.be>
References: <E1q00ho-005c7y-Sp@mail.einval.com> <5938411.lOV4Wx5bFT@bagend> <[🔎] ZHo8D6bidPxYS6LL@pc220518.home.grep.be>

On Friday, 2 June 2023 20:59:27 CEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> "complain on -devel" is not part of the job

That wasn't my intend, but I obviously horribly failed at that.
Won't happen again o/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)
  - From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)
Next by Date: Bug#1037066: ITP: in-place -- In-place file processing with Python
Previous by thread: Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)
Next by thread: Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread