Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 43 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 107:23:08 |
Calls: | 290 |
Files: | 905 |
Messages: | 76,676 |
This is an update for my previous MBF announcement here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00414.html
I did another test rebuild and found 11 new packages failing
in the not-so-distant future. I also found another package
for which the fix was lost and the bug had to reopened.
This is an update for my previous MBF announcement here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00414.html
I did another test rebuild and found 11 new packages failing
in the not-so-distant future. I also found another package
for which the fix was lost and the bug had to reopened.
Did you use libfaketime in this round of rebuilds? (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00422.html)? Do you
think it works well, should we add an extra job in Salsa CI that does
the build or runs autopkgtests under 'faketime 2028-06-30'? Or even
'faketime 2038-06-30' to cover 32-bit issues too?
El 5/1/25 a las 21:07, Otto Kekäläinen escribió:
This is an update for my previous MBF announcement here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00414.html
I did another test rebuild and found 11 new packages failing
in the not-so-distant future. I also found another package
for which the fix was lost and the bug had to reopened.
Did you use libfaketime in this round of rebuilds?
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00422.html)? Do you
think it works well, should we add an extra job in Salsa CI that does
the build or runs autopkgtests under 'faketime 2028-06-30'? Or even
'faketime 2038-06-30' to cover 32-bit issues too?
Yes, it would be *really* nice to have an extra job in Salsa CI for that!
No, I did not use libfaketime yet (sorry). If you want to make a job
in Salsa you can just test with any of the affected packages above and
the (failed) build log should be very similar to the one I provided
in each of the bugs.
I would be more than happy if we could release trixie
without time-bombs, but of course if we can also test
for 2038-06-30, the better.
Maybe a common job which may be fine-tuned using a variable
for the cut date would allow to do that easily.
Thanks.
so what did you use?
Thanks for encouragement. I filed https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/issues/411 and will continue research on libfaketime/datefudge in CI there.
Did you use libfaketime in this round of rebuilds?No, I did not use libfaketime yet (sorry).
Maybe you can consider using a time namespace (unshare -T) and
change the system date/time in that namespace.
as we've seen in the time_t-64 transition, programs that interpose
library calls like this are extremely hard to get right and very
brittle.
I would strongly suggest to not put new load-bearing stuff on top of
such a program, especially when the rest of Debian is trying to get
rid of fakeroot.
Maybe you can consider using a time namespace (unshare -T) and
change the system date/time in that namespace.