Re: another attempt at Y2038
On 2022-10-18, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> Just for my understanding: what would be the correct way to handle this,
> under the assumption that the new symbol names that dpkg-shlibdeps
> found are the ones we want? Is there a way to flag both the time32
> and the tim64 set of symbols as correct, or would we have to have a
> per-architecture list of expected symbols for the new (still to be
> decided) architecture name?
This is pretty normal for c++ libraries to have either symbol files
depending on the architecture or symbol files or symbol somehow
templated and filled out at build time (e.g. pkgkde-symbolshelper)
/Sune
Reply to: