Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-19 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, at 5:23 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2023-04-11 17:10, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> I'm also happy with this resolution. I do not have time to do the Autoconf >> work until the weekend. > > I notice you were careful to not say *which* weekend. :-) Ugh. Yeah. Don't expect

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-19 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-04-11 17:10, Zack Weinberg wrote: I'm also happy with this resolution. I do not have time to do the Autoconf work until the weekend. I notice you were careful to not say *which* weekend. :-) Anyway, I coded up a draft patch and published it here:

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-11 Thread Sam James
Bruno Haible 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 >>

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-11 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023, at 7:00 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2023-04-10 15:36, Bruno Haible wrote: >> I like this. Thanks. > > OK, then let's hear Zack's opinion and hopefully move forward. I'm also happy with this resolution. I do not have time to do the Autoconf work until the weekend. zw

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-04-10 15:36, Bruno Haible wrote: I like this. Thanks. OK, then let's hear Zack's opinion and hopefully move forward. In the meantime I installed the attached Gnulib patch, which documents the current situation better as you suggested (e.g., by suggesting year2038 first) and updates

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Bruno Haible
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

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-04-10 14:08, Bruno Haible wrote: Applications like 'ls' and 'date' and even 'grep' need support for timestamps past 2038. ... if they are used in hardware that will operate in and beyond 2038. That's not the only reason year-2038 support is needed. And it's not just trivial things

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-04-10 14:42, Bruno Haible 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

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul, Here's a suggestion for a compromise. Recall that the macro AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED is like AC_SYS_YEAR2038, with two modifications: - It causes configure to fail if a large 'time_t' is unavailable, - It removes the configure option --disable-year2038. How about a middle ground

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, I want to avoid year-2038 breakage as much as you want. But what you are doing in coreutils and recommending through the Gnulib manual goes beyond that goal. > Applications like 'ls' and 'date' > and even 'grep' need support for timestamps past 2038. ... if they are used in hardware

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-04-10 12:09, Zack Weinberg wrote: I was imagining something to do with library ABIs involving time_t, or network and/or storage formats explicitly specified to use 64-bit counts of seconds since the Unix epoch, or similar. Needs are not limited to library code. Applications like 'ls'

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Bruno Haible
Zack Weinberg wrote: > As the person who invented AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED and > AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED, let me say that it was my intention that they > would only be used in rare circumstances, where the inability to install > the software on older ABIs is outweighed by some other strong >

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 10/04/2023 14:40, Bruno Haible wrote: >> Hi Paul, In yesterday's changes, you added to the Gnulib >> documentation, section "Avoiding the year 2038 problem", wording that >> >>* explicitly recommends the ‘year2038-required’ module,

Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 10/04/2023 14:40, Bruno Haible wrote: Hi Paul, In yesterday's changes, you added to the Gnulib documentation, section "Avoiding the year 2038 problem", wording that * explicitly recommends the ‘year2038-required’ module, which does AC_REQUIRE([AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED]): "The

recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?

2023-04-10 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, In yesterday's changes, you added to the Gnulib documentation, section "Avoiding the year 2038 problem", wording that * explicitly recommends the ‘year2038-required’ module, which does AC_REQUIRE([AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED]): "The Gnulib module ‘year2038-required’ is