On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 4:21 PM Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > > Dear developers, > > With the last known blockers resolved, I have now uploaded NMUs of the > experimental versions of gcc-13 and gcc-14 to unstable, and a corresponding > upload of dpkg changing the default build flags is expected to follow soon, > probably within the day. > > As a result, the 64-bit time_t transition is now in progress in unstable. > > If your packages are any of the lists of those affected by the time_t ABI > transition[0][1][2][3], it may be advisable to hold off uploads to unstable > for the next few days in order to avoid any sort of accidental ABI skew on > armel/armhf. > > And if your package is in the list of those requiring sourceful changes for > the transition due to library package renames[0][1], PLEASE take care not to > make uploads to unstable clobbering the NMUS and reverting the package > renaming. In case you missed it previously, dd-list output saying whether > you have a package that is affected can be found at [4]. > > To avoid pain for porters, the mass NMUs to unstable will only be started > once gcc-13 and dpkg have been built on our 32-bit ports per > <https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?suite=sid&p=gcc-13>. > > As a reminder, the wiki page for the release goal is here: > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time > > See also the various threads on debian-devel for a more in-depth accounting > of the work up to this point.[5]
Are there instructions on how to progress an unstable system through this, or is the repo currently in a known inconsistent state? I have tried upgrading various packages to work through deps but I am unable to do a dist-upgrade for a while. > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world