Hi,
On 14/04/25 at 16:35 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
Hi,
not the maintainer, but having two questions:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 01:28:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: gnocchi
Version: 4.6.5-1
During a rebuild of all packages in testing (trixie), your package failed to build on i386.
1) Why is this severity: serious? gnocchi is an Arch: all package,
supposedly only built on amd64-buildds.
My logic here is: arch:all can be used on all architectures. It's not
always easy, from a build failure, to understand if failing to build
translates to failing to work.
So when it was clear that the package is not expected to work on i386,
I did not file bugs. When it was not so clear, and possibly a bug in the package, I filed the bugs as severity serious.
I'm totally fine if the bugs are turned into "severity=wishlist,
tag=wontfix, title=i386 is unsupported and will never be". (at least it
will be documented)
File "/build/reproducible-path/gnocchi-4.6.5/gnocchi/utils.py", line 120, in timestamp_to_datetime
return datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
v.astype(float) / 10e8).replace(tzinfo=iso8601.iso8601.UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OverflowError: timestamp out of range for platform time_t
2) This points to a property the project explicitly requested for
the i386 port. It would seem wrong to me to expect individual
packages to apply workarounds.
I think you mean "rejected" not "requested".
Whats your take?
I don't know. Maybe we need something like
"architecture-has-64-bit-time_t"?
Lucas
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)