On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:25:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:58 -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > *Think* for a moment about the consequences. This is not a simple > > > rebuild, this is a serious problem. > > I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for the > > trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request from the > > release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with beforehand. > > Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the magnitude of the > > problem, and not doing so was entirely my error. > Wow. Thank you. This would help in the short term, though I suspect > the damage is done and the other packages are "fixing" their "bugs" at > this point. I agree that the release team should decide. You won't get any argument from the release team about whether it's ok for .la files to be dropped from packages, in cases where the library also integrates with pkg-config. In addition to pkg-config being much easier to integrate with plain Makefiles, its dependency handling is much better able to cope with changes to library relationships. It's just the timing that becomes an issue. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature