Bug#1108361: release-notes: Document time64 transition on relevant 32-bit arches
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:28:53AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:14:07AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >> I see no explicit mention of the time64 transition. I think this should
> >> be documented because the transition involved a no-SONAME-rename which
> >> means we broke the involved architectures ABI, where we protected the
> >> archive from that breakage via packaging metadata. But for locally
> >> built code, this can silently break it while those binaries do not fail
> >> to link. The exception (and its rationale) for i386 should also be
> >> mentioned.
> >
> > Agreed, but somebody needs to come up with the text.
> >
> > I don't know the rationales and what is actually noteworthy about
> > the transition.
>
> First question: where does it go? If we think of it as a "new
> feature" of Y2038-safety, it ought to go in 2.2 or thereabouts; if
> we're putting the emphasis on the dangers then it belongs in 5.1
> (perhaps immediately after the section on i386).
I think we should focus on the dangers. From the vibe I got recently
we cannot make promises on the future of the archs where it's
actually relevant. Thus I would not advertise it as a feature.
Chris
Reply to: