Control: close -1 On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 22:06:28 +0000 Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > Source: xdp-tools > Version: 1.4.0-1 > Severity: serious > Tags: patch pending sid trixie > Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade > User: debian-...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: time-t > > NOTICE: these changes must not be uploaded to unstable yet! > > Dear maintainer, > > As part of the 64-bit time_t transition required to support 32-bit > architectures in 2038 and beyond > (https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time), we have identified > xdp-tools as a source package shipping runtime libraries whose ABI > either is affected by the change in size of time_t, or could not be > analyzed via abi-compliance-checker (and therefore to be on the safe > side we assume is affected). > > To ensure that inconsistent combinations of libraries with their > reverse-dependencies are never installed together, it is necessary to > have a library transition, which is most easily done by renaming the > runtime library package. > > Since turning on 64-bit time_t is being handled centrally through a change > to the default dpkg-buildflags (https://bugs.debian.org/1037136), it is > important that libraries affected by this ABI change all be uploaded close > together in time. Therefore I have prepared a 0-day NMU for xdp- tools > which will initially be uploaded to experimental if possible, then to > unstable after packages have cleared binary NEW. > > Please find the patch for this NMU attached. > > If you have any concerns about this patch, please reach out ASAP. Although > this package will be uploaded to experimental immediately, there will be a > period of several days before we begin uploads to unstable; so if information > becomes available that your package should not be included in the transition, > there is time for us to amend the planned uploads.
According to what was reported on IRC, this is a failed analysis rather than detection of an ABI change, and that's the reason the package was marked. But there is no reference of 'time_t' anywhere in the code base, let alone in the public headers, so it seems to me this is a false positive, closing accordingly. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part