Re: 64-bit time_t transition in progress
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:58:51AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, if this suggestion had come 6 months ago when this plan was laid out
> on debian-devel, I think it would have been worth exploring.
>
> Though I would have still expected a large number of false-positives,
> because there would be differences for any library using time_t-derived
> types internally, *or* any filesystem access affected by LFS.
The idea was to compare the shared library binaries not the packages.
> > Do the libxxxt64 in experimental supposed to use the new ABI ? Because it
> > does not seem to be always the case. Is there a lintian test for that ?
>
> No. Earlier this had been the plan, but after discussing with Guillem we
> realized that wasn't actually relevant so we revised the plan on the fly and
> skipped dpkg in experimental.
So the libraries in experimental are going to have an incompatible ABI with the
ones in unstable ?
> > Relying on dpkg-buildflags alone cannot be sufficient.
>
> I don't see any practical reason why not.
Because packages are not required to use dpkg-buildflags.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: