Re: Question regarding time_t transition

[Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>]

Hi,

Am 12.03.24 um 15:17 schrieb Raphaël Halimi:
> Are we supposed to report bugs against packages ending up with "t64" 
> and missing the "Provides: <package_without_64>" for affected 
> architectures like armhf ? 

That Provides: is there for archs where the transition *doesn't* make a 
difference.

In Debian: Anything except armel/armhf.  (ignoring ports where the 32bit 
archs are in  the same boat as armel/armhf ttbomk)


So the packages not  having a Provides: <package_without_64> on 
armel/armhf are correct.

> Or are they intentional and we should wait for the package to be 
> tested/ready/whatever ?

Intentional, yes.


Regards,


Rene