Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal

From	Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.devel
Subject	Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal
Date	2023-06-06 21:50 +0200
Message-ID	<GDKQN-e7rS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<GwgNP-9s1z-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <GDzsl-e0D6-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi Helmut,

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 09:33:22AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 09:04:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > * … but NOT on i386.  Because i386 as an architecture is primarily of
> >   interest for running legacy binaries which cannot be rebuilt against a new
> >   ABI, changing the ABI on i386 would be counterproductive, as mentioned in
> >   https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time.

> I've been reading the discussion around i386 a bit and found the
> direction it has taken a little unproductive. I hope we can agree that
> there is no consensus on keeping or changing the time ABI for i386 while
> there is quite some consensus for your plan on changing the time ABI for
> all other 32bit architectures in roughly the way you brought forward.

I have a different read on the consensus here.  While there has been a lot
of discussion about whether to continue supporting i386 as a host arch,
almost everyone participating in the thread who said they want this is not a
voting member of Debian.  The lone exception that I can recall from the
thread was Guillem, who, as dpkg maintainer, is certainly a stakeholder in
this decision (and since we don't really have an "i386 porting team",
probably the most important individual stakeholder).

Since my read is that Guillem was in the "rough" of "rough consensus", I
asked him directly how we should move forward on a decision.  A GR is one
option, and I think it's definitely a better option than going through the
TC: while there is a decision to be made here about a "technical" detail of
what dpkg-buildflags will do, you're right to point out that it's really a
decision about what we want to support as a project.

> While the i386 discussion seemed a little unproductive at times, I think
> there is one major argument that I feel is missing here. If keeping the
> 32bit time ABI for i386, that effectively becomes a divergence from
> every other architecture. i386 will be the one and only architecture to
> be time32. As it happens, I have some experience with such divergence
> from how bootstrapping interacted with other transitions such as PIE.
> Maintaining this kind of divergence has a non-trivial cost. Over time it
> becomes more and more difficult and less and less people are interested
> in doing it. As such, I see the addition of this kind of divergence as a
> way of killing i386.

Hmm, I don't share this particular concern.  PIE is a change to compiler
behavior.  32-bit time_t is a change to defines that modify types (and
prototypes) used in header files.  Maintaining a compiler is hard,
maintaining a library ABI is "easy" - glibc has avoided breaking ABI for 25
years so far.

> Judging from the conversation, killing i386 quite obviously is desired
> by some participants, but evidently not by all. How quickly we want to
> kill it is not obvious to me. However, I think it is fair to say that
> keeping time32 on i386 will kill it rather sooner than later. With
> time32, we cannot reasonably extend i386 beyond forky as we'd be running
> too close to the final deadline.

As a reliable host OS, sure.  As a compatibility layer, as Simon has pointed
out, having a wrong idea of the time is not a big deal for a lot of
applications.

> Some of you may have been aware of that Debian Reunion in Hamburg
> recently. There was a BoF on how Debian should decide about non-trivial
> matters and one result of that BoF was "maybe we should GR more often".
> I think the decision of what to do with time32 is not a really important
> one despite some people being very opinionated about it. How about
> settling it using a GR anyway? We perceive GRs as painful and there is a
> saying that if something is difficult, let's do it more often. How about
> trying to do GRs more often with this decision? I think it is pretty
> clear that neither answer is wrong. It's a choice that we have make and
> then to stick to. And we can learn something about whether GRs really
> are painful. I think the worst of outcomes we could get here is going
> into much further detail in a GR and adding lots of competing proposals
> there. If that were to happen, I'd consider the experiment as failed.
> Leaving the details to those who put up with the work (and that quite
> obviously is Steve et al here) is important in my book. So unless we can
> do it as simple as "i386 should keep being time32" vs "i386 should
> become time64 by default", we probably shouldn't GR it.

I am not keen to try to drive a GR on this, but if you raised one I'm likely
to second it.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Thread

64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-17 06:20 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-17 06:40 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> - 2023-05-17 07:50 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 22:10 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Florian Lohoff <f@zz.de> - 2023-05-22 10:30 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 07:10 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-05-18 12:10 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 16:50 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2023-05-18 18:20 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Olaf Titz <olaf@bigred.inka.de> - 2023-06-26 20:50 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 16:50 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2023-05-18 21:20 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 21:40 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2023-05-17 11:40 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 07:40 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2023-05-28 21:20 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2023-05-17 14:30 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-17 17:50 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 03:10 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 21:10 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 05:40 +0200
        i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 13:50 +0200
          Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 14:40 +0200
            Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 16:10 +0200
              Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 16:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 16:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2023-05-19 17:10 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 19:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future  Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2023-05-25 13:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 17:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 18:00 +0200
                partial support for i386 (Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit  time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal)) Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 19:50 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2023-05-22 12:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal) Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 17:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 18:00 +0200
              Bug#1036358: release-notes: Debian 12 expected to be last release w/ installer for i386 Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-19 17:40 +0200
                Re: Bug#1036358: release-notes: Debian 12 expected to be last release  w/ installer for i386 Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 19:40 +0200
              Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 19:10 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 19:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 20:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 19:40 +0200
              Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> - 2023-05-19 21:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-19 22:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> - 2023-05-19 22:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2023-05-20 07:10 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-20 14:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a  proposal) Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2023-05-31 01:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-31 06:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> - 2023-05-31 14:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Sven Hoexter <sven@stormbind.net> - 2023-05-31 16:20 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-05-31 18:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2023-05-31 20:50 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-31 21:30 +0200
                Re:  Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal) Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2023-05-31 07:00 +0200
                Re: Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for  32-bit archs: a proposal) James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-31 10:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2023-05-31 12:50 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Alexandre Detiste <alexandre.detiste@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 13:10 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Sven Hoexter <sven@stormbind.net> - 2023-05-31 16:10 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-05-31 18:30 +0200
                  Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a  proposal) Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2023-05-31 23:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-06-01 00:20 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2023-06-01 15:20 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 19:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2023-06-02 21:10 +0200
                  Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a  proposal) Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2023-06-02 23:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for  32-bit archs: a proposal) Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-01 03:40 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2023-06-01 14:20 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezmeyer@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 02:20 +0200
          Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 17:50 +0200
            Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2023-05-19 19:50 +0200
          Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-05-19 20:10 +0200
          Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-19 20:50 +0200
            Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-20 00:00 +0200
              Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-21 08:00 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> - 2023-05-26 01:30 +0200
                Re: i386 in the future (was Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit  archs: a proposal) James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-26 06:50 +0200
            Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the future  32-bit archs: a proposal)] Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2023-05-20 09:20 +0200
              Re: Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the  future 32-bit archs: a proposal)] Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> - 2023-05-20 11:30 +0200
              Re: Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the  future 32-bit archs: a proposal)] Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2023-05-20 18:50 +0200
                Re: Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the  future 32-bit archs: a proposal)] Stephen Kitt <skitt@debian.org> - 2023-05-21 20:00 +0200
                Re: Using i386 by mistake on 64-bit hardware [was Re: i386 in the  future 32-bit archs: a proposal)] James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-05-22 14:30 +0200
          Re: i386 in the future Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2023-05-20 05:30 +0200
            Re: i386 in the future Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-05-20 10:00 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-23 03:20 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 04:10 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-06-14 06:50 +0200
              Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-06-17 17:50 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-18 08:40 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-20 02:30 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2023-05-20 13:30 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2023-05-20 17:50 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-23 03:30 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-05-23 03:30 +0200
  Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2023-06-06 09:40 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-06 12:50 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-06-06 13:10 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-06-06 17:30 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-06-06 20:30 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-06 21:50 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Alexis Murzeau <amubtdx@gmail.com> - 2023-06-06 21:50 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 21:10 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-07 06:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2023-06-08 07:10 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 21:20 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 07:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com> - 2023-06-08 08:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Hakan Bayındır <hakan@bayindir.org> - 2023-06-08 10:50 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2023-06-08 11:00 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 06:00 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2023-06-09 11:30 +0200
              Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2023-06-09 11:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 11:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 11:40 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 17:10 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com> - 2023-06-09 01:30 +0200
            Re: multiarch vs. multilib Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 11:00 +0200
              Re: multiarch vs. multilib nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com> - 2023-06-11 10:00 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 05:20 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 11:30 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 06:30 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 08:00 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> - 2023-07-05 18:30 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-06-06 21:50 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-07 06:40 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2023-06-08 19:20 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2023-06-08 20:00 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-06-08 21:00 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 19:00 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2023-06-26 21:40 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal James Addison <jay@jp-hosting.net> - 2023-06-27 10:20 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 11:40 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 18:50 +0200
              Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 23:40 +0200
                Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2023-07-07 01:40 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 22:50 +0200
    Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-06-07 06:40 +0200
      Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> - 2023-06-07 09:30 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal "Peter Van Eynde" <pvaneynd@debian.org> - 2023-06-07 10:30 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2023-06-07 12:50 +0200
        Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2023-06-07 13:10 +0200
          Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 19:00 +0200
            Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-07-06 19:20 +0200
        [i386] adlibtracker2 and fp-units-i386  Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2023-06-07 15:40 +0200
  Constructive contributions (was: Re: 64-bit time_t transition for  32-bit archs: a proposal) Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 13:30 +0200

csiph-web