Re: time_t transition and bugs
Thanks Steve for uploading a fixed curl on Saturday. Just checking did you notice amel/armhf are still not building due to secondary issues and n dependencies? https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=curl
Re: time_t transition and bugs
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 10:37:33PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 06:34:43AM -0700, Antonio Russo wrote: > > There's a similar issue with versioned dependencies by un-transitioned > > packages have on non-t64 libraries (e.g., libqt5sql5). > It's not similar, it's caused by some t64 libraries having wrong Provides. > I've filed bugs about this on poppler, qt5 and curl, there may be more. As mentioned on IRC, I isolated the bug in the script that caused this, which allowed working out the full list of affected packages. https://paste.debian.net/1309262/ curl, nordugrid-arc, poppler, qtbase-opensource-src, and xmlrpc-c have been uploaded with the fix. petsc will take a little bit, as there are other bugs that need fixing at the same time. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: time_t transition and bugs
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 06:34:43AM -0700, Antonio Russo wrote: > There's a similar issue with versioned dependencies by un-transitioned > packages have on non-t64 libraries (e.g., libqt5sql5). It's not similar, it's caused by some t64 libraries having wrong Provides. I've filed bugs about this on poppler, qt5 and curl, there may be more. > 1. Is the time_t transition team aware of these issues? I would assume that they are aware about the issues directly blocking the transition progression and many other issues are not relevant yet. > 2. Where should these kinds of bugs be reported? I feel like reporting to > individual packages might get lost, and also these may represent less > package-specific > issues. When in doubt I would ask on #debian-devel, where the real-time coordination seems to happen. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
time_t transition and bugs
Hello! I decided to jump into unstable to see the status of the time_t transition. There is currently an issue that seems to have not made any progress in the last few upload cycles. Specifically, some of the t64 renames are being reverted by several packages (e.g. util-linux), leaving *versioned* dependencies on the t64 libraries unsatisfiable. This breaks transitioned packages. There's a similar issue with versioned dependencies by un-transitioned packages have on non-t64 libraries (e.g., libqt5sql5). The end result is that unstable totally broken right now, doubly so if you're using kde/qt5 (I am holding packages in older versions in aptitude right now). My questions are: 1. Is the time_t transition team aware of these issues? 2. Where should these kinds of bugs be reported? I feel like reporting to individual packages might get lost, and also these may represent less package-specific issues. Best, Antonio Russo OpenPGP_0xB01C53D5DED4A4EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
