On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:28:53AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote: > Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:14:07AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> I see no explicit mention of the time64 transition. I think this should > >> be documented because the transition involved a no-SONAME-rename which > >> means we broke the involved architectures ABI, where we protected the > >> archive from that breakage via packaging metadata. But for locally > >> built code, this can silently break it while those binaries do not fail > >> to link. The exception (and its rationale) for i386 should also be > >> mentioned. > > > > Agreed, but somebody needs to come up with the text. > > > > I don't know the rationales and what is actually noteworthy about > > the transition. > > First question: where does it go? If we think of it as a "new > feature" of Y2038-safety, it ought to go in 2.2 or thereabouts; if > we're putting the emphasis on the dangers then it belongs in 5.1 > (perhaps immediately after the section on i386).
I think we should focus on the dangers. From the vibe I got recently we cannot make promises on the future of the archs where it's actually relevant. Thus I would not advertise it as a feature. Chris
