On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:37:12PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > At least upstream seems active on that one. And the maintainer was around > > to respond to #518037 in March, even if their response wasn't entirely > > satisfactory and upstream themselves asked to reopen it :/ So he's not > > entirely MIA ... OTOH, Erik, the upstream maintainer, does seem to be > > maintaining some other packages, so perhaps we should give him a thumbs > > up to hijack this one and look after it himself. > > > > Added to the CC also. Erik, how do you feel about that ;? > > Sorry, what question is it that I'm supposed to be answering here?
My apologies then, Luk was querying if the regular maintainer was MIA, if you don't think so, that's pretty much all the answer we need on that. #518037 is release critical though, and remains open still. Is there a suitable fix for that in the works? > Yes, I am a DM, but I am not a DD. Most of my debian work has been > around the Haskell programming language. I've been pretty happy > with the way libsndfile has been maintained, but if it was to be > orphaned, I'd be happy to adopt it. > > AFAICS, libsndfile is currently maintained. > > > > Did you contact the maintainers announcing you would drop the .la file? > > > If so, then one could indeed argue that the maintainers should know what > > > is happening. Though now it looks like the maintainers are not aware and > > > most probably think there is an issue with libogg AFAICS. > > > > Not all of them. There was mail traded with John Ferlito, who should be > > adopting libtheora, libvorbis, libspiff, vorbis-tools, uriparser, libao, > > so I considered those covered, likewise the other xiph codecs I maintain > > which already have their .la removed. > > I'm think I'm coming in rather late on this, but why were these .la > files removed? I've read through bug#539687 and its still not clear. On Debian systems they add nothing but another point of failure. At best, if they are perfectly correct, they are exactly equivalent to not having one at all, in almost every case and certainly for this library. At worst, when they are wrong, the effects range from what was reported in #539889, to what has happened here until all the rdeps have been rebuilt again. Basically all we really need to know from you or Samuel is will this package be uploaded in the near future, preferably with a fix to the outstanding RC bug, or should it be added to the list of packages that will just get a binNMU. Ron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
