• time_t and backports

    From John Goerzen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 26 14:40:02 2024
    Hi folks,

    As a person that frequently uploads to bookworm-backports, I am
    wondering how we are handling the time_t transition there?

    The picture of synchronization with testing is a little complicated over
    there. If you change the default build flags, you produce unexpected
    surprises over bookworm. If you don't, the t64 packages aren't really
    t64.

    Thanks,

    John

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andreas Metzler@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Feb 26 16:00:02 2024
    On 2024-02-26 John Goerzen <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hi folks,

    As a person that frequently uploads to bookworm-backports, I am
    wondering how we are handling the time_t transition there?

    The picture of synchronization with testing is a little complicated over there. If you change the default build flags, you produce unexpected surprises over bookworm. If you don't, the t64 packages aren't really
    t64.

    Hello,

    Imho you would need to undo the t64 rename for bpo instead of fiddling
    with buildflags. We needed a transition because the whole distribution
    needs to be built consistently with (or without) t64. bookworm is built without.

    If you backported a libfoo3 which had replaced libfoo2t64 things will
    get complicated, it would be necessary to upload as libfoo3t32 but the
    tooling (${t32:Provides} does not exist.

    cu Andreas
    --
    `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
    so grateful to you.'
    `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)