Re: Y2038 - best way forward in Debian?
On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 09:55 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Ansgar" == Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:
>
> Ansgar> On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 08:33 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> Steve, you're presuming that we would not create a new soname
> for
> >> libc6 on architectures where we want a new time ABI.
>
> Ansgar> Isn't the libc ABI for some reason part of Debian's
> Ansgar> architecture name? uclibc-linux-amd64, musl-linux-i386,
> Ansgar> i386 are distict architectures after all. So an
> Ansgar> incompatible newglibc-linux-i386 would be different from
> Ansgar> i386 as well?
>
> Not if they are coinstallable.
> As an example libc5 and libc6 were both on the i386 architecture.
Why wouldn't musl-linux-i386 be coinstallable with glibc-linux-i386?
Debian's musl package (on amd64) is coinstallable with libc6; we just
don't build anything[1] against alternative libraries.
One practical problem is that you don't want to end up linking two
different C libraries (or really: any core libraries).
I don't really see much difference between libc6 vs libc7 or libc6 vs
libmusl (besides applications that require glibc and might not work
with musl, but that is a separate issue).
This might also mean that musl-linux-i386 shouldn't be a different
architecture than i386. If they are different, then maybe libstdc++6-
libc6-linux-i386 and libc++-libc6-linux-i386 would need to be different
architectures too?
Ansgar
[1]: Yes, very few exceptions might exist.
Reply to: