Bug#1028587: datefudge: 64-bit time_t functions are not implemented/exposed

2023-01-18 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:50:15PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: > Control: severity -1 serious > Control: tags -1 + ftbfs > > Hi Maintainer and i386, arm, mips porters > > > As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit > > time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. Datefudge h

Bug#1028587: datefudge: 64-bit time_t functions are not implemented/exposed

2023-01-18 Thread Graham Inggs
Control: severity -1 serious Control: tags -1 + ftbfs Hi Maintainer and i386, arm, mips porters > As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit > time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. Datefudge however does not > expose nor implement such functions. As can be seen on re

Bug#1028587: datefudge: 64-bit time_t functions are not implemented/exposed

2023-01-13 Thread Adrien Nader
Package: datefudge Version: 1.24 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, When updating coreutils to version 9.1 in Ubuntu, we noticed that datefudge autopkgtests started failing on armhf. As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. D