Re: 64-bit time_t: updated archive analysis, proposed transition plan with timeline
Hi Steve
On 2024-01-05 09:42:06 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On 2024-01-05 00:23:00 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 12:17:04AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > == Results ==
>
> > > > The overall findings of this analysis are 1,745 "dev" packages which
> > > > either are confirmed to have ABI changes or could not be checked;
> > > > mapping to 2,154 runtime libraries (list attached) from 1,195 source
> > > > packages (list attached) and 5,477 reverse-dependencies requiring
> > > > no-change rebuilds (list attached). This is within the previously
> > > > calculated range of "5300 to 5600", but there are a number of
> > > > newly-identified packages that fail to compile and have a large number
> > > > of reverse-dependencies. I will continue to work to identify
> > > > false-positives here in the hopes of bringing this count down before
> > > > pulling the trigger on an actual transition.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > In addition, Guillem pointed out that if there are libraries whose
> > > > ABIs are lfs-sensitive but not time_t-sensitive, and either they
> > > > themselves depend on libraries which are time_t-sensitive or they have
> > > > reverse-dependencies that do, so they will also need to be included in
> > > > the transition. I have identified a list of 53 packages in this
> > > > category (list attached); these in turn have 174 additional
> > > > reverse-dependencies that would need rebuilt (list attached).
>
> > > I am also attaching here the dd-list output for the packages that will need
> > > to be sourcefully NMUed for the transition, for your review.
>
> > Why do the need sourceful NMUs if they just need to be rebuilt?
>
> Sorry, if the original message hadn't been lost somewhere in the mail
> system before being delivered to debian-devel (I've now tried to resend it),
> this might have been clearer from context. Guillem points out the mail has
> been delivered to debian-release, so you can read the whole thing there:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2024/01/msg00033.html
>
> Anyway, this is the list of source packages containing libraries whose ABI
> will change. So the packages need to be renamed in order to expose the ABI
> incompatibility to reverse-dependencies.
I am confused. Above you say:
> these in turn have 174 additional
> reverse-dependencies that would need rebuilt (list attached).
This sounds to me like those are packages that are involved in the
transition and need rebuilds, but do not change their ABI. And in fact,
for most of packages that I maintain on the list, the ABI does not
change.
Can you please clarify which of the packages in your lists require
changes to the binary package names and which do not?
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: