Source: libgpiod
Dear maintainer,
Please find attached a final version of this patch for the time_t
transition. This patch is being uploaded to unstable.
Note that this adds a versioned build-dependency on dpkg-dev, to guard
against accidental backports with a wrong ABI.
Thanks!
-- System
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 12:36:34AM +0800, 賴建宇 wrote:
> Now I understand it. Thanks for the explanation!
> Currently, I am working on upgrading libgpiod. The upstream reworks the
> whole API since v2.0 [3], so I also plan to rename the package[1].
> To avoid renaming the package two times in a
Hi,
Now I understand it. Thanks for the explanation!
Currently, I am working on upgrading libgpiod. The upstream reworks the
whole API since v2.0 [3], so I also plan to rename the package[1].
To avoid renaming the package two times in a short time. Is it okay that I
upload the new version
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:13:51PM +0800, 賴建宇 wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I am working on upgrading the libgpiod version, so I also took time to
> investigate this 64-bit time_t topic.
> I noticed that the libgpiod2.symbols and libgpiod2t64.symbols are identical
> in the debdiff file. I am
Hi Steve,
I am working on upgrading the libgpiod version, so I also took time to
investigate this 64-bit time_t topic.
I noticed that the libgpiod2.symbols and libgpiod2t64.symbols are identical
in the debdiff file. I am wondering if it is necessary to rename this
package in this case. Please
Source: libgpiod
Version: 1.6.3-1
Severity: serious
Tags: patch pending
Justification: library ABI skew on upgrade
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: time-t
Dear maintainer,
As part of the 64-bit time_t transition required to support 32-bit
architectures in 2038 and beyond
6 matches
Mail list logo
