Re: Seeking help to resolve a lintian request
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 09:01:30AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 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.
I agree, at least in those packages in which upstream sources seems to
do a hack instead to use those tools. But doing that in almost all
packages have the problem of making .diffs large or wasting buildd
time (depending on which solution do you implement).
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
Reply to: