• Bug#1065509: mysql-8.0 ftbfs with test failure on 32bit time_t64

    From Matthias Klose@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 5 20:40:01 2024
    Package: src:mysql-8.0
    Version: 8.0.36-1
    Severity: serious
    Tags: sid trixie

    here seen on armhf:

    [...]
    [ 58%] main.compare w4 [ pass ] 2171
    [ 58%] main.func_unixtime_32bits w1 [ fail ]
    Test ended at 2024-03-05 17:31:14

    CURRENT_TEST: main.func_unixtime_32bits

    CURRENT_TEST: main.func_unixtime_32bits
    --- /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/mysql-test/r/func_unixtime_32bits.result 2023-12-12 21:09:36.000000000 +0300
    +++
    /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/builddir/mysql-test/var/1/log/func_unixtime_32bits.reject 2024-03-05 20:31:13.393008921 +0300
    @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
    2038-01-19 06:14:07
    select from_unixtime(2147483648);
    from_unixtime(2147483648)
    -NULL
    +2038-01-19 06:14:08
    select from_unixtime(0);
    from_unixtime(0)
    1970-01-01 03:00:00
    @@ -32,26 +32,26 @@
    2147483647
    select unix_timestamp(from_unixtime(2147483648));
    unix_timestamp(from_unixtime(2147483648))
    -NULL
    +2147483648
    # check for invalid dates
    # bad year
    select unix_timestamp('2039-01-20 01:00:00');
    unix_timestamp('2039-01-20 01:00:00')
    -0
    +2179087200
    select unix_timestamp('1968-01-20 01:00:00');
    unix_timestamp('1968-01-20 01:00:00')
    0
    # bad month
    select unix_timestamp('2038-02-10 01:00:00');
    unix_timestamp('2038-02-10 01:00:00')
    -0
    +2149365600
    select unix_timestamp('1969-11-20 01:00:00');
    unix_timestamp('1969-11-20
  • From Debian Bug Tracking System@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 7 01:40:01 2024
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

    Your message dated Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:34:48 +0000
    with message-id <E1ri1ii-00Akft-OU@fasolo.debian.org>
    and subject line Bug#1065509: fixed in mysql-8.0 8.0.36-2
    has caused the Debian Bug report #1065509,
    regarding mysql-8.0 ftbfs with test failure on 32bit time_t64
    to be marked as done.

    This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
    If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
    Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

    (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
    message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
    immediately.)


    --
    1065509: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065509
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

    Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Mar 2024 19:38:22 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
    (2021-04-09) on buxtehude.debian.org
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,
    BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,FORGED_SPF_HELO,FOURLA,FROMDEVELOPER,HAS_PACKAGE,
    RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,
    SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
    version=3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
    X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 90; hammy, 150; neutral, 122; spammy,
    0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--pkgbuilddir,
    0.000-+--PKGBUILDDIR, 0.000-+--armhf, 0.000-+--H*F:U*doko,
    0.000-+--trixie
    Return-path: <doko@debian.org>
    Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:38533 helo=einhorn-mail-out.in-berlin.de)
    by buxtehude.debian.org with