On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 09:38:06PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Well, the title of this bug is "NMU diff for 64-bit time_t > transition", and the bug description said:
> "we have identified libcomps 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" > So the fact that there's no trace of time_t to be found and the script > was broken and couldn't find anything either sounds to me more than > enough to say it is a false positive. > If there are more things that can affect this, then the bug > description ought to at least mention what they are and why, but right > now it doesn't. > > So, I'm reopening this bug report. This package has already been skipped > > over in the short term for NMUing to unstable, so you can take some > > additional time to do your own analysis - but barring that, I will plan to > > do the NMU in 2 days. > If you can fix the script and show it is actually needed then sure, > please feel free to reopen and show that it's actually needed. But > otherwise no, having to carry a silly package name forever "just in > case" is very much not ok, sorry. We have done the work now to get an out-of-band result from abi-compliance-checker confirming that this library's ABI is not affected. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
