Your message dated Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:26:32 -0700
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#621627: gss: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying
dependency_libs
has caused the Debian Bug report #621627,
regarding gss: 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.)
--
621627: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621627
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gss
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.
gss 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
gss 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: 1.0.1-2
[email protected] writes:
> 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.
Already fixed in 1.0.1-2, uploaded a few days ago.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Help-gss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gss
