On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:27:14PM -0000, Sebastian Marsching wrote: > I guess there is only one case where the current "fix" would help. If > someone had some library providing libungif in a different place, the > broken symlinks in /usr/lib might take precedence, thus hiding the > correct files.
Do we know if anyone has reported this case? > In my opinion, removing the dangling symlinks is a slight improvement on > the current situation and the risk of breaking something is very low. On > the hand, I do not know whethere there are other considerations > regarding a SRU in addition to the potential for regressions (which is > low in this case). The risk may be low but it is non-zero. If we don't know of any user impacted, I don't think there is any justification for an SRU. > Sure, it's low priority but the fix isn't wrong. Sure, but that's something for the development release. In the stable release, I think we need a better reason (such as non-hypothetical affected users). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1337898 Title: Invalid symlinks for libungif.so and libungif.a To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/giflib/+bug/1337898/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs