On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:08:37PM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > Copying context from elsewhere in the thread, Sam Hartman wrote: > > Are there solutions in the space of having glib2.0-0 continue to exist > > as a package depended on by glib2.0-0t64 or depending on the new library > > allowing you to replace the postrm? > > to which I replied: > > If libglib2.0-0 continues to exist, then packages that expect the affected > entry points to have 32-bit time_t will still have their dependencies > satisfied, but then when they call the affected entry points, they will > crash, because their time_t is not the same size as GLib's. So as far > as I can see, this is functionally equivalent to reverting the rename: > to be correct, it would have to be accompanied by versioned Breaks on > every package that calls into the affected entry points.
Sorry, yes, because we're transitioning the package name but not the soname. My mistake.
