Re: recommending AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED ?
Bruno Haible <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:36:45 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.distributions |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <9797572.lZ1qq7WqSs@nimes> |
Paul Eggert wrote: > > How about a middle ground between the two macros? A macro, say > > AC_SYS_YEAR2038_UNLESS_OPT_OUT (*), that > > - like AC_SYS_YEAR2038, has the option --disable-year2038, > > - like AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED, fails if a large 'time_t' is > > unavailable and --disable-year2038 was not specified. > > Even simpler, let's have just one new macro instead of two. I.e., let's > change Autoconf to remove AC_SYS_YEAR2038_REQUIRED and to define instead > a macro AC_SYS_YEAR2038_OPT_OUT that acts like AC_SYS_YEAR2038 except it > errors out if wide time_t and --disable-year2038 are both missing. > > Then let's propagate this change into Gnulib, and rename Gnulib's > year2030-required module to year2038-opt-out. I like this. Thanks. And if the package would very much like to assume a wide time_t and therefore has some test suite failures if --disable-year2038 was specified, so be it. It's better to be able to build a package at all, with some test suite failures, than not being able to build it at all. > Similarly for AC_SYS_LARGEFILE_REQUIRED. For the sake of symmetry between the two, that makes sense. Bruno