Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition

["Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1357 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 10. September 2024, 01:08:36 CEST schrieb Arsen Arsenović:
> Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> At that point, we should bump SONAME of libc and simply remove 32-bit
> >> time support.  This would probably be okay generally.
> >
> > This is probably the best solution to this problem at hand, especially since
> > the old ABI has a definite expiration date about 14 years from now.  Bump the
> > libc SONAME major and hope that we can get rid of the last dependencies on the
> > old SONAME before the deadline.  We will have 14 years to do it, if that arch
> > is even still used then.
> 
> Indeed.  I believe the current thinking is that the existing software
> for the old ABI could benefit from libc updates, hence not breaking it,
> but.. it practically is somewhat broken already (hence the troubles that
> lead to this thread).
> 

This is all nice and good, but I would actually like to focus on realistic
targets (ie., ones which could be achieved significantly before 2038... :o)

That's also the beauty of only appending t64 to the last quadruplet field, 
most software is not impacted by it and just accepts it.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]