Re: Seeking help to resolve a lintian request
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 11:09:05PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I agree. Things in Debian don't need to use ltdl.
>
> Are you suggesting we should patch ltdl out of a perfectly working
> upstream source? A patch that upstream most likely is never going to
> accept? Just because we don't need it does not mean we should go to
> lengths to get rid of it.
Of course not! what we should be doing is patching libtool, and
force-refreshing libtool, gettext and other stuff like that to our
up-to-date, fixed, known-good version in all packages.
Pushing that upstream is optional, and obviously not always desireable.
I am not kidding. We should in fact go to extreme lengths to reduce the
number of braindead hacks in Debian, and that includes libtool.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: