Bug#1028587: datefudge: 64-bit time_t functions are not implemented/exposed

[Graham Inggs]

Control: severity -1 serious
Control: tags -1 + ftbfs

Hi Maintainer and i386, arm, mips porters

As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit
time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. Datefudge however does not
expose nor implement such functions.

As can be seen on reproducible builds [1], datefudge now FTBFS on at
least i386 and armhf, and I was able to confirm the failure on the
mipsel porterbox.

As datefudge is a build-dependency of gnutls28 and oath-toolkit, both
key packages, how should this be resolved?

Regards
Graham


[1] https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/datefudge.html

[Adrian Bunk]

Post by Graham Inggs
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: tags -1 + ftbfs
Hi Maintainer and i386, arm, mips porters

As far as I can tell, the reason is that coreutils now uses a 64-bit
time_t and functions with a "64" suffix. Datefudge however does not
expose nor implement such functions.

As can be seen on reproducible builds [1], datefudge now FTBFS on at
least i386 and armhf, and I was able to confirm the failure on the
mipsel porterbox.
As datefudge is a build-dependency of gnutls28 and oath-toolkit, both
key packages, how should this be resolved?

I'd start by asking how many implementations of this functionality we
ship, and whether all of them have the same problem.

faketime has more users and an upstream, but the same problem.

Adding the missing functionality to one implementation (faketime?)
and ensuring there are RC bugs against all other implementations
(are there other ones apart from datefudge?) would be my suggestion.

Users of unfixed implementations could then migrated to fixed ones.

Post by Graham Inggs
Regards
Graham
...

cu
Adrian