On Thu, 26 May 2011 23:26:26 +0200 Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 11:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Am 26.05.2011 10:46, schrieb Simon McVittie: > >> On Thu, 26 May 2011 at 08:47:06 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > >>> Comments welcome, but foremost I'd like a mass effort to clear the > >>> remaining dependency_libs fields! :-) > >> > >> Am I right in thinking that this is the process people should follow? > >> > >> if depended-on: > >> if dependency_libs: > >> clear the dependency_libs > >> else: > >> do nothing (until you are no longer depended-on) Even when depended-on, the dependency_libs field can be cleared, the .la file itself though cannot be removed. > >> else: > >> if dependency_libs: > >> clear the dependency_libs > >> > >> if you are confident that it won't break anything: > >> delete the .la file entirely If the only listing is dependency_libs, then the .la file can be removed as long as the package itself doesn't use the .la for plugins. If it does (and maintainers of such packages already know if their package is affected), clear the dependency_libs. > > Clearing the dependency_libs is always safe, afaics, so I'd rather say it is > > something like > > > > if depended-on > > clear dependency_libs > > else > > remove *.la files > > There are some good reasons to keep some specific *.la files around, > that's why I'm not aiming at removing them, but at least have the real > problem solved. > > So I suggest: > > if dependency_libs > clear dependency_libs If it is just dependency_libs and there are no plugin issues, it IS safe to remove the .la file rather than adding sed-based processing. See these messages and pages for more information: 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 -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpbzgRNfZO0P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
