XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From:
[email protected]
Hi John, thanks for getting back!
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:08:22AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi Lukas and Michael,
Thank you for your work on this large transition.
I am confused.
I'm sorry for the confusion, this time_t ABI transition is a special snowflake, as timing is crucial. It all depends on the new default compiler flags introduced through src:dpkg. See:
https://bugs.debian.org/1037136
The gensio bug was reported with severity serious, against the version
of gensio in unstable, which prevents transition to testing.
I don't understand what action is being requested. If the bug cannot be fixed, it should not be filed (or not filed as serious).
We cannot fix this bug right now. Only in experimental, where we have the new dpkg already. As soon as the dpkg time_t changes land in unstable, we need to fix affected libraries quickly, to minimize breakage. That's why we're currently staging 1000+ NMUs.
Additionally, there are other bugs impacting these packages and their
symbol files, which I have addressed. They will create a conflict with
the proposed NMU, so the NMU will need to be refreshed before being
applied.
Now the bug is reopened asking me to roll back the same patch that the
bug was opened for. I could of course do that -- disentangling the
conflicts -- and close the bug with the upload. But that would leave
gensio without the t64 libraries -- the same state it was in when you reported the serious bug.
If you have other bugs to address you can do that in unstable. But please revert the NMU patch for the time being. As stated above, we need to wait
for dpkg (Bug#1037136) to land in unstable, first.
The upload you have in unstable right now is still compiled using the old time_t ABI, thus will be broken once the dpkg changes land.
So which is it: is there a serious bug with gensio in unstable with the
t64 libraries, or without? It cannot be both.
I don't think I've ever received a bug report, severity serious, tagged patch, found in the version in unstable, where applying the patch is
somehow the wrong thing to do.
Please clarify what action I could take that would close this bug.
We don't have t64 libraries in unstable, yet. So it is not (yet) affecting gensio in unstable, but will be in due course. We wanted to give maintainers
a bit of headroom, before uploading NMUs into unstable en masse.
Please roll back the NMU patch in unstable. But feel free to upload other changes that are needed to fix gensio bugs. We'll then need to rebase the NMU.
After Bug#1037136 is resolved in unstable, we can upload the changes from the NMU patch to unstable, which will pick up the new 64-bit time_t ABI and thus close this bug. This should happen within the next few weeks.
I may not be the only one confused here, and would be happy to have this conversation on debian-devel if that would be more broadly useful.
I understand this can be confusing, dicussion about it has been going on for the past several weeks and months, feel free to jump into those threads for further clarification:
-
https://lwn.net/ml/debian-devel/[email protected]/
-
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036884
Cheers,
Lukas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE496GmCL5m2y8NfJ5v322IrMDrIsFAmXA9dAACgkQv322IrMD rIuuIBAAzCJxOlatuI0Gtdg7Qv9PMKeCTU1aeBT0V6dsYRx/v4k7lwYRmFxMe1FE bBDQNBKV4veUrROlpZgPuvCzXe9xFoTfqddehCeLgeKR5hjab4x2juwrzcuf6R25 ijBnR6Zh8ICAQsYQnVIGpJ5Z6QWQm0tT2VlsZNtOkARNPdo1LtsqOqSrYvhQZ1t3 MTjt1A+x92ACzUlFsweq+9X7vhPm3H8gZxvTT64NOYXbkqkT4zh3UnFtiWmGB1nP vwSOs2Z/Uk+GyK/IIL6dZ+esXA9uOevu/W0SD/yV5Sc0EivaouLN+Mo80LLCiGvd 8VN80ykZFkyvj9YgxZ2VlMKNN3B22o6AOfauT0LYbxsKYsDCFYjIOGKdJaUkSvPK 0QuYlBCBg+MOENUjPmibg51B63NiJ14gu+ltbJjpTCRz6NXPAGpz7DtheOjhB7QT y5dPp+wZc71yQMOrvslo1vOuiSsUv9m6+lao0tRwE5cQOwMydBjOETeIER95WGRH iUeLWnA9ZoR1F93WDZFqsGsDzuh0KVQn9nb8RsevjsMCSh3bvUmO6F5PmJI8t/t/ vAR7I+Djzexf2yhfK+U5IWrZF4lVuHZzEODyqxJskbXhvo6/zu5VEmdoA8wC0Dl4 iJwCJRjLP+P6TFCX5477L+zBJ2i9ba2KTf5uS0/t85IbNHg5Ho8=
=SuKh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)