On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Please tell me if I have this right:
> * You don't like .la files
Yes.
> * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> them
Yes.
> * Even though they're a years-old and very well established
> technology
.la files? I wouldn't call them 'very well established'.
> * Which upstream libtool has not yet decided to eliminate ("It's
> already under discussion")
And X.Org upstream are currently seriously discussing whether or not to
eliminate libtool, at which point you get broken away. This, believe it
or not, a) improves portability, and b) makes you immune to further
changes.
> * And which has not been discussed on debian-devel or any other
> Debian list as far as I can tell (Google search).
Yes.
> Can you really be serious?
Yes.
> For example, if the maintainer of GLib decides (s)he doesn't like the
> way it handles modules, and upstream *might* at some point change the
> behavior, is that alone enough justification to change it and break all
> of its dozens of reverse-depending packages?
If the dependent packages can be fixed with a rebuild, and the reason is
solid, rather than, 'I'm bored'? Yes.
Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time
spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt.
I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random
flamebait more than actual productive work.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature