Hi John, thanks for getting back! On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:08:22AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Hi Lukas and Michael, > > Thank you for your work on this large transition. > > I am confused.
I'm sorry for the confusion, this time_t ABI transition is a special snowflake, as timing is crucial. It all depends on the new default compiler flags introduced through src:dpkg. See: https://bugs.debian.org/1037136 > The gensio bug was reported with severity serious, against the version > of gensio in unstable, which prevents transition to testing. > > I don't understand what action is being requested. If the bug cannot be > fixed, it should not be filed (or not filed as serious). We cannot fix this bug right now. Only in experimental, where we have the new dpkg already. As soon as the dpkg time_t changes land in unstable, we need to fix affected libraries quickly, to minimize breakage. That's why we're currently staging 1000+ NMUs. > Additionally, there are other bugs impacting these packages and their > symbol files, which I have addressed. They will create a conflict with > the proposed NMU, so the NMU will need to be refreshed before being > applied. > > Now the bug is reopened asking me to roll back the same patch that the > bug was opened for. I could of course do that -- disentangling the > conflicts -- and close the bug with the upload. But that would leave > gensio without the t64 libraries -- the same state it was in when you > reported the serious bug. If you have other bugs to address you can do that in unstable. But please revert the NMU patch for the time being. As stated above, we need to wait for dpkg (Bug#1037136) to land in unstable, first. The upload you have in unstable right now is still compiled using the old time_t ABI, thus will be broken once the dpkg changes land. > So which is it: is there a serious bug with gensio in unstable with the > t64 libraries, or without? It cannot be both. > > I don't think I've ever received a bug report, severity serious, tagged > patch, found in the version in unstable, where applying the patch is > somehow the wrong thing to do. > > Please clarify what action I could take that would close this bug. We don't have t64 libraries in unstable, yet. So it is not (yet) affecting gensio in unstable, but will be in due course. We wanted to give maintainers a bit of headroom, before uploading NMUs into unstable en masse. Please roll back the NMU patch in unstable. But feel free to upload other changes that are needed to fix gensio bugs. We'll then need to rebase the NMU. After Bug#1037136 is resolved in unstable, we can upload the changes from the NMU patch to unstable, which will pick up the new 64-bit time_t ABI and thus close this bug. This should happen within the next few weeks. > I may not be the only one confused here, and would be happy to have this > conversation on debian-devel if that would be more broadly useful. I understand this can be confusing, dicussion about it has been going on for the past several weeks and months, feel free to jump into those threads for further clarification: - https://lwn.net/ml/debian-devel/zgrsonvo0dtcu...@homer.dodds.net/ - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036884 Cheers, Lukas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
