Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Re: Build failure: cannot find -lz
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being.
> > We're still not so much in a rush.
> Yes, we *are*. The RC bug count for etch is currently moving in the wrong
> direction, and having dozens of FTBFS bugs added all of a sudden contributes
> to this problem.
Well, it got in the wrong direction because of
> > Freeze is not tomorrow. Let's first fix packages that don't use a correct
> > libtool,
> Note that unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, "correct
> libtool" here means "Debian libtool including patches that have not been
> accepted upstream". There are a number of Debian maintainers who resist
> re-libtoolizing their packages using the Debian libtool, because they don't
> want to carry around the large diffs to autogenerated files. All the
> packages maintained by the GNOME team apparently fall in this category.
Last time I looked at some gnome packages, one of the few dpatches was a
relibtoolize one... The change has been done more than 10 days ago now,
it it were to break dozens, or possibly even *hundreds* of packages, it
would already have done so. I still think the number of concerned
packages is relatively low. But I'll fix the issue anyways.
> > and then let's see if we need the dependency again if the time
> > is too short to fix everything.
> We already know that time is too short, because this change will cause
> literally dozens, or possibly even *hundreds*, of RC FTBFS bugs that will
> eat up the time of everyone trying to push for release, distracting from the
> ones that actually *need* to be fixed on their respective packages.
Speaking of RC bugs that *need* or not to be fixed, I'm still waiting to
know if i can ignore-etch #377418...
> If you want to try to work out which packages can be usefully updated to the
> Debian libtool and submit patches, I'm all in favor of this -- but in the
> meantime, please don't leave libxml2-dev in unstable in a state that breaks
> our ability to build large portions of the archive.
There are 2 ways of solving the problem: either add the dependency on
zlib1g-dev back, or remove the dependency_libs from the .la.
The former has the drawback to break static linking using libtool, but
is it a real problem ?