Re: 64-bit time_t transition question, and Re: Backport request for btrfs-progs

Alexander Wirt <[email protected]> Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:38:19 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.backports.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:30:20AM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Benjamin Drung <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 16:14 -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> >> 
> >> One thing I'm not sure about is how the 64-bit time_t transition affects
> >> backports: A no-change backport of btrfs-progs would normally require a
> >> no-change backport of reiserfsprogs, but I feel like reiserfsprogs'
> >> 64-bit time_t transition could break things for bookworm users.  The
> >> three options appear to be:
> >> 
> >>   1. No-change backports everywhere (and risk breakage).
> >>   2. Disable support for reiserfs in btrfs-convert (my preference).
> >>   3. Backport reiserfsprogs without the 64-bit time_t transition.
> >> 
> >> I don't yet trust or recommend the use of btrfs-convert, but "ReiserFS
> >> has been deprecated upstream and scheduled for removal 2025"
> >> (reiserfsprogs/debian/changelog), so I can understand why people might
> >> want support for this to migrate in-place now...  That said, backup and
> >> restore to a filesystem created with mkfs (rather than btrfs-convert) is
> >> the safest route, and I'd prefer if users used trixie to experiment with
> >> in-place conversion.
> >
> > tl;dr: Backport with the 64-bit time_t transition changes reverted
> >
> > Long answer: In case you backport a package, it will build with the old
> > dpkg/debhelper and therefore will not enable 64-bit time_t. So in case
> > your backport would include the 64-bit time_t changes, these changes
> > would be wrong.
> 
> Belated thank your reply!  Ah, so it seems no-change uploads will often
> not be possible this cycle, and the checklist would be:
> 
> 1. Revert 64-bit time_t transition changes
> 2. Downgrade dpkg-dev requirement (related to #1)
> 
> The Debhelper bpo reverts movetousr, but it really required to use
> bookworm's dh?  Not having (>= 13.11.5~) will reintroduce up to three
> bugs to affected packages, and as the next year progresses the delta
> will grow.
> 
> Thus  3. Downgrade debhelper requirement?
> 
> Is this documented anywhere yet?

I didn't had the chance to announce that yet or link it to the official website, but Helmut
kindfully documented the glorious details about time_t64 and backports. I did not review 
the document yet, but Helmut has a lot of more knowledge than me about that topic. Therefore
consider as kind of policy. 

https://wiki.debian.org/BuildingFormalBackports#bookworm-backports

Alexander
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)