On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:21 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:52:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >* Adding a time64 armhf as a separate (incompatible) target in glibc
> > that defines __TIMESIZE==64 and a 64-bit __time_t would avoid
> > most of the remaining ABI issues
Hey Arnd,
Catching up on this thread a little late, sorry... :-/
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:52:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what
>problems come up once the entire distro gets rebuilt. Based on Lukasz'
>recommendation, I
On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 00:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings:
>
> > On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 16:02 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> > >
> > > > libtirpc is the replacement. I wasn't aware if uses libc-provided rpc
> > > > headers
* Ben Hutchings:
> On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 16:02 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rich Felker wrote:
>>
>> > libtirpc is the replacement. I wasn't aware if uses libc-provided rpc
>> > headers (presumably only if they exist, since folks are using it fine
>> > on musl)
On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 16:02 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > libtirpc is the replacement. I wasn't aware if uses libc-provided rpc
> > headers (presumably only if they exist, since folks are using it fine
> > on musl) but even if so I think
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:12 PM Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:22 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > - Removing the time32 symbols from the glibc shared object did
> > > > not work as they are still used (a lot) internally, and by the
> > > > testsuite.
> > >
> > > That
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:47 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> libtirpc is the replacement. I wasn't aware if uses libc-provided rpc
> headers (presumably only if they exist, since folks are using it fine
> on musl) but even if so I think the types will automatically update
> when time_t changes. Of
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:28:43PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:22 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:52:00 +01000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what
> > > problems come up once the
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:22 PM Rich Felker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:52:00 +01000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what
> > problems come up once the entire distro gets rebuilt. Based on Lukasz'
> > recommendation, I tried the
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:52:00 +01000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what
> problems come up once the entire distro gets rebuilt. Based on Lukasz'
> recommendation, I tried the 'y2038_edge' branch with his experimental
> glibc patches
[some mailing lists appear to have classified the earlier mail as spam,
it was quite long and contained a lot of links. See
https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2020/03/msg00032.html for the
start of the thread if you did not get that]
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:37 PM Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> >
As discussed before, I tried using the rebootstrap tool [1] to see what
problems come up once the entire distro gets rebuilt. Based on Lukasz'
recommendation, I tried the 'y2038_edge' branch with his experimental
glibc patches [2], using commit c2de7ee9461 dated 2020-02-17.
Here is a rough
12 matches
Mail list logo
