Re: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline
On 2024-01-05 00:23:00 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 12:17:04AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > == Results ==
> >
> > The overall findings of this analysis are 1,745 "dev" packages which either
> > are confirmed to have ABI changes or could not be checked; mapping to 2,154
> > runtime libraries (list attached) from 1,195 source packages (list attached)
> > and 5,477 reverse-dependencies requiring no-change rebuilds (list attached).
> > This is within the previously calculated range of "5300 to 5600", but there
> > are a number of newly-identified packages that fail to compile and have a
> > large number of reverse-dependencies. I will continue to work to identify
> > false-positives here in the hopes of bringing this count down before pulling
> > the trigger on an actual transition.
>
> [...]
>
> > In addition, Guillem pointed out that if there are libraries whose ABIs are
> > lfs-sensitive but not time_t-sensitive, and either they themselves depend on
> > libraries which are time_t-sensitive or they have reverse-dependencies that
> > do, so they will also need to be included in the transition. I have
> > identified a list of 53 packages in this category (list attached); these in
> > turn have 174 additional reverse-dependencies that would need rebuilt (list
> > attached).
>
> I am also attaching here the dd-list output for the packages that will need
> to be sourcefully NMUed for the transition, for your review.
Why do the need sourceful NMUs if they just need to be rebuilt?
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: