Re: datefudge: 64-bit time_t functions are not implemented/exposed
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:50:15PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Control: severity -1 serious
> Control: tags -1 + ftbfs
>
> Hi Maintainer and i386, arm, mips porters
>
> > As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit
> > time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. Datefudge however does not
> > expose nor implement such functions.
>
> As can be seen on reproducible builds [1], datefudge now FTBFS on at
> least i386 and armhf, and I was able to confirm the failure on the
> mipsel porterbox.
>
> As datefudge is a build-dependency of gnutls28 and oath-toolkit, both
> key packages, how should this be resolved?
I'd start by asking how many implementations of this functionality we
ship, and whether all of them have the same problem.
faketime has more users and an upstream, but the same problem.
Adding the missing functionality to one implementation (faketime?)
and ensuring there are RC bugs against all other implementations
(are there other ones apart from datefudge?) would be my suggestion.
Users of unfixed implementations could then migrated to fixed ones.
> Regards
> Graham
>...
cu
Adrian
Reply to: