Re: about 64bits time_t transition and deborphan
Hi, Patrice Duroux wrote: > Out of curiosity, I started this transition on some packages from > experimental and I observed that deborphan is not without > «disruption». > [...] > Is this something to be reported to deborphan as it could also be in > some other cases than this time_t transition? or wait and see... ;-) I guess "wait and see" for now. The whole operation seems to be still in progress and leaves traces in the package tracker. See e.g. section "testing migrations" in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisoburn The associated mailing list got notifications as bug reports 1062380 for libisoburn and 1062381 for libisofs on february 1st. Yesterday came bug report 1063123 for libburn. I am curious how this will unfold further. Especially whether the new binary package name "libisoburn1t64" will persist for future releases. Have a nice day :) Thomas
about 64bits time_t transition and deborphan
Hi, Out of curiosity, I started this transition on some packages from experimental and I observed that deborphan is not without «disruption». Indeed, the added suffix t64 to their name means that the updated libraries are listed by deborphan even if they are required by other packages. I suspect that deborphan did not take into account the Provides: field. Is this something to be reported to deborphan as it could also be in some other cases than this time_t transition? or wait and see... ;-) Regards, Patrice
