On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:14:08AM +0100, Leon Marz wrote: > Hi there, > I just quickly checked. cglm doesn't use time_t in its sources or in its > ABI. I think the abi-compilance-checker just failed to analyze this > package for some reason. Therefore I would like to NOT transition cglm. > Also I don't like the new name. > Thank you very much for your work on this issue.
This is correct, cglm is a package that could not be analyzed. The log of the attempt is at https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-01-17/logs/libcglm-dev/base/log.txt and the code where quirks can be added to help existing packages be analyzed without modification is <https://salsa.debian.org/vorlon/armhf-time_t/-/blob/main/check-armhf-time_t?ref_type=heads>. It is not correct to assume that a library's ABI is unaffected because you don't find references to time_t in the source. There are a number of derivative types and structs that can be affected. This is why we run a compiler to analyze the headers. -- 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
