Re: Re: time_t progress report

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 at 13:09:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Simon McVittie, le dim. 24 mars 2024 11:59:50 +, a ecrit: > > For the specific example of pipewire, I've suggested temporarily > > dropping that feature from pipewire on the affected architectures > >

Re: Re: time_t progress report

Simon McVittie, le dim. 24 mars 2024 11:59:50 +, a ecrit: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 at 12:56:52 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > 2. FTBFSing packages (those that block further work, anyway) > ... > > An example of a currently existing obstacle of this kind is snapd-glib > > (mainly because it

Re: Re: time_t progress report

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 at 12:56:52 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > 2. FTBFSing packages (those that block further work, anyway) ... > An example of a currently existing obstacle of this kind is snapd-glib > (mainly because it blocks pipewire). For the specific example of pipewire, I've suggested

Re: Re: time_t progress report

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 04:50:48PM -0500, Steven Robbins wrote: > Wondering about the current state of this transition. It's still in the stage of re-bootstrapping armel and armhf. https://buildd.debian.org/stats/armel.png https://buildd.debian.org/stats/armhf.png https://buildd.debian.org/stats/g

Re: Re: time_t progress report

Wondering about the current state of this transition. Is there a tracker of any kind for this? Or would someone be willing to post an email here periodically? Weekly maybe? I looked at the release goals wiki and at the "brain dump" page but failed to find anything dated more precisely than "