Bug#731914: lintian: arch-specific behavior for timestamps far in the future

[Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.19
> Severity: normal
>
> If a package contains files with timestamps far in the future, then lintian
> will emit different set of tags depending on whether it's run on 32- or
> 64-bit machine.
>
> (i386) $ lintian --no-cfg libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev_0.3.4-1_amd64.deb
> E: libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev: tar-errors-from-data Archive octal value
> 33415462123 is out of time_t range; assuming two's complement
> E: libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev: tar-errors-from-data Archive octal value
> 33415462123 is out of time_t range; assuming two's complement
> E: libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev: package-contains-ancient-file
> usr/share/doc/libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev/changelog.gz 1950-12-22
>
> (amd64) $ lintian --no-cfg libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev_0.3.4-1_amd64.deb
> E: libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev: tar-errors-from-data
> ./usr/share/doc/libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev/changelog.gz: time stamp
> 2087-01-28 00:29:07 is 2307798691.20417264 s in the future
>
>
> Apparently libghc-quickcheck-instances-dev would have been auto-rejected
> from the archive if ftp-master.d.o had been running a 32-bit system.

What do you prefer ?

Tag for 31bits overflow  or 64 bits ?

I suppose 31bits is on the safe side ?

Bastien
>
> --
> Jakub Wilk
>