Re: 64-bit time_t transition: cargo needs manual intervention
Andrea Bolognani, le mer. 13 mars 2024 18:03:40 +0100, a ecrit:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:34:55PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Simon McVittie, le mer. 13 mars 2024 10:52:35 +0000, a ecrit:
> > > 2. i386 is 32-bit but has been excluded from the 64-bit time_t transition
> > > because its major purpose this decade is running legacy 32-bit binaries,
> > > a purpose that would no longer be possible if it broke ABI
> > > - non-release architectures in the same category: hurd-i386 (I think)
> >
> > We asked hurd-i386 to be there indeed, because we plan to have
> > hurd-amd64 replace hurd-i386 way before 2038 :)
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to migrate hurd-i386 to 64-bit time_t
> regardless of the plans for hurd-amd64?
When seeing the pain that arm* suffer, I believe we made the right
choice.
> Contrary to linux-i386, it's not like there is a wealth of (possibly
> proprietary/binary-only) hurd-i386 software out there that we would
> benefit from remaining compatible with.
Sure, but the migration itself takes manpower, for no real benefit.
Samuel
Reply to: