Your message dated Mon, 27 May 2013 17:38:40 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug#680072: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #633240,
regarding sugar-hulahop: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
633240: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633240
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: sugar-hulahop
Version: 0.8.1-1
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: la-file-removal
To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy
10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs
against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed
or stripped of the dependency_libs variable.
http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00055.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/04/msg00199.html
Data has been obtained from the output of an automated script:
http://release.debian.org/~aba/la/current.txt
The output is best read in conjunction with the criteria from this
post to debian-devel:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html
To generate the list of packages, I've used:
grep -v depended-on current.txt |cut -d: -f1
The data is regularly updated but please accept my apologies if you
have made an upload which changes the situation since the data was
parsed.
sugar-hulahop (0.8.1-1) appears in this list as a source package
because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages)
contain .la files.
In most cases, the .la file(s) can simply be removed as the process
behind this MBF has already identified that there are no further
dependencies using the .la file. In the unusual case that your
package uses libltdl directly, it is still necessary to empty the
dependency_libs part of all .la files remaining in the package. Once
sugar-hulahop is fixed, the process will repeat and other packages
which you maintain may need to be fixed in turn. It is important that
packages are fixed in sequence to avoid FTBFS bugs.
If you believe that your package needs both the .la file and the
dependency_libs settings, please raise this on debian-devel for
clarification.
--
Neil Williams
=============
[email protected]
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.8.1-1+rm
Dear submitter,
as the package sugar-hulahop has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports. We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.
For details on the removal, please see http://bugs.debian.org/680072
The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.
This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
[email protected].
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)
--- End Message ---
