Re: The time64 switchover has happened!

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 10:22:48AM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I just pushed the patch series switching 32-bit archs to 64-bit time.
> > Between now and next release, 32-bit archs' ABIs are intended-stable
> > but tentative, and could change before release, but I don't intend to
> > do that unless some serious unforseen problem is discovered during
> > testing and is impractical to fix without changing something.
> > 
> > The actual switchover commit is
> > 38143339646a4ccce8afe298c34467767c899f51 and the series ends with
> > d6dcfe4d0c58856690ecbad4cf191d7c9ee1a4a8.
> > 
> > Now, it's time for testing. I've done some build and smoke tests of
> > OpenSSL, Python, Perl, strace, coreutils, busybox (git master needed
> > to fix time64 problems), and a few other packages, but large
> > distro-scale package builds will be the real test of how easy this
> > transition is going to be.
> > 
> > For distributions that aren't a "make world" sort of thing (mix of
> > package versions), I know there will be issues with mixing old and new
> > libraries and applications; I'm not sure yet how severe they'll be.
> > This would be very useful to have reports/feedback on. Such distros
> > should make preparations, and short of detailed research to determine
> > how much or little breakage there will be, should make users aware
> > that a global dist-upgrade operation (with all libs and apps rebuilt
> > for time64) is the safest and recommended way to move to the first
> > release that will incorporate time64 musl.
> 
> For the purposes of our try build test packaging, is it safe to call
> this commit "1.2.0 alpha1"?

I don't see any reason not to, but I'm not familiar with the details
of how your package versioning works. There won't be a branch of
time64 released as 1.1.x; if there are any future 1.1.x releases
they'll be bugfix backports for EOL'd time32.

Rich