public inbox for distributions@lists.linux.dev
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
To: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
Cc: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@owlfolio.org>,
	"Pádraig Brady" <P@draigbrady.com>,
	bug-gnulib@gnu.org, "Paul Eggert" <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>,
	distributions@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:49:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87jzyhem84.fsf@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9797572.lZ1qq7WqSs@nimes>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1884 bytes --]


Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> writes:

> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > How about a middle ground between the two macros? A macro, say
>> > AC_SYS_YEAR2038_UNLESS_OPT_OUT (*), that
>> >    - like AC_SYS_YEAR2038, has the option --disable-year2038,
>> >    - like AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED, fails if a large 'time_t' is
>> >      unavailable and --disable-year2038 was not specified.
>> 
>> Even simpler, let's have just one new macro instead of two. I.e., let's 
>> change Autoconf to remove AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED and to define instead 
>> a macro AC_SYS_YEAR2038_OPT_OUT that acts like AC_SYS_YEAR2038 except it 
>> errors out if wide time_t and --disable-year2038 are both missing.
>> 
>> Then let's propagate this change into Gnulib, and rename Gnulib's 
>> year2030-required module to year2038-opt-out.
>
> I like this. Thanks.

Thanks for bringing this up Bruno. This is a reasonable compromise to me
- not just in the change here, but in the documentation/phrasing tweak
as I was concerned about the rather forthright recommendation & presentation of
year2038-required.

>
> And if the package would very much like to assume a wide time_t and
> therefore has some test suite failures if --disable-year2038 was specified,
> so be it. It's better to be able to build a package at all, with some
> test suite failures, than not being able to build it at all.
>

I feel on the fence about this bit: I think it's reasonable to provide
a macro to require it as a last resort for people, but on the other
hand, providing it might be seen to encourage it as a reasonable
solution, when in most cases, it's not that way at all,
so I'll go with however the majority feels on that.

>> Similarly for AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED.

... and this.

>
> For the sake of symmetry between the two, that makes sense.
>

Thanks Paul as well.

best,
sam

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-04-12  5:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-10 13:40 recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ? Bruno Haible
2023-04-10 14:12 ` Pádraig Brady
2023-04-10 19:09   ` Zack Weinberg
2023-04-10 19:45     ` Bruno Haible
2023-04-10 19:52     ` Paul Eggert
2023-04-10 21:08       ` Bruno Haible
2023-04-10 22:01         ` Paul Eggert
2023-04-10 21:42       ` Bruno Haible
2023-04-10 22:00         ` Paul Eggert
2023-04-10 22:36           ` Bruno Haible
2023-04-10 23:00             ` Paul Eggert
2023-04-12  0:10               ` Zack Weinberg
2023-04-19 21:23                 ` Paul Eggert
2023-04-19 22:53                   ` Zack Weinberg
2023-04-12  4:49             ` Sam James [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87jzyhem84.fsf@gentoo.org \
    --to=sam@gentoo.org \
    --cc=P@draigbrady.com \
    --cc=bruno@clisp.org \
    --cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
    --cc=distributions@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
    --cc=zack@owlfolio.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox