From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A151F910 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.b="eYuOd+mJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382873846469 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:18:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 382873846469 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668262697; bh=q+L8mwjPQ/Y2J2YR3Hc0xxaAwgOOhMmlAKjKrVo2Njw=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=eYuOd+mJddBPISobsuAbicdg2oJli8ehjCqm/qtDmJazgEBiW9NqKqwxpsCtVTt+4 jeUL5GJ/soQO8NBnhycIi5hN7dHOb2MDzsKxvkyu1HWWVfBFUglUhn2mhXcEB6JjZ8 6bANMutYax1eBlSGX8LrxGgnSfm9DZp0ua7AheJw= Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A50D73858035 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:17:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A50D73858035 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827565C0093; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:17:56 -0500 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvgedrfeekgdeifecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufhfffgjkfgfgggtgfesthhqredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepkggrtghk ucghvghinhgsvghrghcuoeiirggtkhesohiflhhfohhlihhordhorhhgqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpefhvdevuefgjeeuheegfeejhefhheegkeejhfejhffgveduhfehjefggfel fffgheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe iirggtkhesohiflhhfohhlihhordhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i876146a2:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:17:55 -0500 (EST) To: Sam James Cc: Florian Weimer , Paul Eggert , Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha , autoconf@gnu.org, c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev, toolchain@gentoo.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org Subject: Re: On time64 and Large File Support References: <87wn81q254.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <26EF336D-C051-49D6-98A9-EF0707591A6D@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:16:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <26EF336D-C051-49D6-98A9-EF0707591A6D@gentoo.org> (Sam James's message of "Sat, 12 Nov 2022 03:57:28 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Zack Weinberg Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" Sam James writes: >> On 12 Nov 2022, at 02:20, Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha wrote: >> I am honestly not sure what to do about this in the long term, but for >> the proposed =E2=80=9Cthis weekend, just bugfixes=E2=80=9D Autoconf 2.72= , I do think it >> makes sense to back out change #2, only =E2=80=94 that is, AC_SYS_YEAR20= 38 will >> exist, but AC_SYS_LARGEFILE will *not* imply AC_SYS_YEAR2038. That will >> limit the impact of AC_SYS_YEAR2038 to packages that have explicitly >> added it, and should make it safe for Fedora and Gentoo to drop in 2.72 >> in order to unblock C23 testing =E2=80=94 am I correct? It doesn=E2=80= =99t resolve the >> larger issue, but it gives us more time to think about what the >> resolution ought to be. >>=20 >> What do you think? > > This is really I think the best option while allowing us time & space > to complete the larger discussion. [=E2=80=A6] I am going to go ahead and do this if nobody raises a concrete objection within the next 24 hours. zw