On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:41:46 -0400, Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> wrote: >On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: >>On Apr 03, Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> wrote: >>>The issue isn't making a change, the issue is what change is the >>>right thing to do. IMO, dropping utmp without any kind of a >>>transition or deprecation period is the wrong thing to do. Hence >>>this thread. >>I think it's a bit late now to disagree with the plan implemented last >>year by multiple maintainers. > >Except, of course, for the primary consumer of utmp... > >I'm the one who gets the complaints that who isn't working right, and >there isn't a solution to that problem, since the systemd facility >doesn't provide the same information. I'd argue that a lot of people >didn't realize how screwed up things were going to be, because the >change didn't impact normal use until after a reboot. So people have >slowly been finding out over time that a decades-old interface is no >longer available, and the answer "well, we decided to drop it" falls a >little flat since there seems to be no actual reason to not just support >both mechanisms.
Can your package handle the classic on-disk format when it is compiled with 64 bit time_t? I remember there was some discussion about that back then. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
