* Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> [250217 02:57]: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:32:14AM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > * Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> [250217 01:20]: > > > And what about non-X terminals, such as provided by GNU Screen? > [...] > > > > I can see how they are probably not very interesting. But anyway, > > its a question for upstream. > > No, it's a question for debian. We're releasing a distribution, and we're > responsible for the parts and how they go together. Simply shrugging and > saying that people are looking for something that isn't interesting is not > particularly user-friendly. Can you explain why a phased approach, > preserving utmp/wtmp for this release, while deprecating them and > introducing an eventual replacement, is not possible *for debian*?
The d-devel discussion was in April 2024: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/04/msg00406.html Back then would have been a good time to evaluate what changes your package needs, and/or see what breaks, and follow up with such questions. In February 2025 it's a bit late. One argument for not keeping stuff that will break in y2038 for trixie is that would make the time_t-64 transition mostly pointless. If relevant parts of the system don't work after y2038, then we also wouldn't have needed the time_t-64 transition. Given that it's done, it seems logical to follow through. --enable-systemd likely improves the current situation. Why not enable it now? Chris
