On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:04:01 -0700
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
If you are listed in the attached dd-list, it means that the following
tasks should be done REAL SOON NOW in order to smooth the path for
Multi-Arch and comply with Policy
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
The cases listed are the ones where the .la file can be removed.
Packages with .la files which don't meet those criteria were not
included in the list. However, it looks like there could be a flaw in
the original data.
Indeed, there were a bunch of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would
be good if we could refresh the original goal so that .la files can be
removed rather than
On 2011-04-03, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would
be good if we could refresh the original goal so that .la files can be
removed rather than
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:38:58 + (UTC)
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
On 2011-04-03, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would
be good if
On 2011-04-03, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
.la files themselves are harmless, if the dependency_libs field is
cleared.
Harmless, but are they actually then useful?
I just gave a example on where it is not only useful, but required.
There might be hard to replace old copies of
Hi,
2011/4/3 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
(...)
Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian.
dh-make 0.58 install .la files by default
(/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debianl/package-dev.install contains
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:57:22 +0200
Mathieu Parent math.par...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2011/4/3 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
(...)
Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian.
dh-make 0.58 install .la
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
It is far cleaner to simply not package the .la file than to mangle it
with sed in debian/rules - my contention is that removing the file is
the best solution to the harm done by the dependency_libs field.
[...]
Hello,
If you removed an la file
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would
be good if we could refresh the original goal so that .la files can be
removed rather than applying a
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:49:22 +0200
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
It is far cleaner to simply not package the .la file than to mangle it
with sed in debian/rules - my contention is that removing the file is
the best
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:45:13 +0200
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
Andreas: the process you used to create the initial list - is that
available as a script somewhere? Can it be re-run? Can the updated
output be filtered for the
Mathieu Parent math.par...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
2011/4/3 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
(...)
Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian.
dh-make 0.58 install .la files by default
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
If you are listed in the attached dd-list, it means that the following
tasks should be done REAL SOON NOW in order to smooth the path for
Multi-Arch and comply with Policy 10.2:
0: Check the listed package for .la files in the current version in sid.
Hi Neil,
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:53:02AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would
be good if we
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (03/04/2011):
In addition to changing dh-make to not install .la files by default,
as has already been suggested in this thread, I think we should look
to get the desired behavior out of the common helpers (dh and cdbs)
by default.
As a guy who added something
Am 04.04.2011 02:19, schrieb Cyril Brulebois:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (03/04/2011):
In addition to changing dh-make to not install .la files by default,
as has already been suggested in this thread, I think we should look
to get the desired behavior out of the common helpers (dh and
Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org (04/04/2011):
I might be mistaken, but I think Steve's meant something more along
the lines of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586082
I guess I could have been more specific, and quoted Steve a bit
further:
| Once that's made its way through the
Le dimanche 03 avril 2011 à 17:06 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
Now that this is largely out of the way, we should definitely look at a more
general and scalable solution than filing patches against each package with
a .la file.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=534966
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
