On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 16:57:28 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 03.03.24 16:46, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 16:11:36 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > I just filed another bug report for bc, together with the one for heimdal.
> > >
> > > Please turn this off for a while, it's really harmful for the time64
> > > bootstrap.
> >
> > This was added on request by Steve, to help with the time64 changes.
> >
> > > When you turn it on again,
> > >
> > > - please provide an opt-out option.
> >
> > This is a bug, which I should fix.
> >
> > > - turn it on on all architectures, so that everbody
> > > can reproduce the effects.
> >
> > I'd be fine with that.
> >
> > > - before turning it on again, please do an archive wide
> > > test rebuild and file bug reports for it.
> >
> > My impression is that this was done as part of the time64 checks? If
> > not, and the consensus is to disable the flag, I'm very unlikely to
> > drive this, and someone else will need to do those rebuilds and post
> > results.
>
> I can do that, but we will need a stable dpkg version and a dpkg upload
> providing that setting on amd64 without time64 set. Then I'll ask Lucas for
> two test rebuilds (at this stage, that would be testing).
> Doing test rebuilds with time64 enabled on testing doesn't make sense for
> now, and unstable is too unstable.
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, so let me try
to rephrase, you'd like to see:
- a dpkg 1.22.6 upload for unstable to the Debian archive with the
bug-implicit-func unconditionally set?
- a dpkg 1.21.x version out-of-archive with the bug-implicit-func
support backported and also enabled by default?
For the former you should be able to do that already by setting the
flag to enable via DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS with the version already in sid,
if you don't want time64 then you can also disable that there. The
latter I don't understand, so perhaps I interpreted that incorrectly
from what you said.
> > I think making the opt-out functional might be enough to help with
> > this, and I could upload a fix later today, which would not disarm
> > this safety net for the time64 transition. But at this point I don't
> > mind either way, and if people prefer disabling the warning then I can
> > do that instead.
>
> at least for heimdal, three people spent several hours looking for the cause
> of the failure. I'm not sure we want these kind of delays for the
> transition.
While that's unfortunate, I think that might be better than silently
letting ABI breakage through due to the missing Werror flag.
Thanks,
Guillem
