[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Old Release goal: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:49:22 +0200
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:

> Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > It is far cleaner to simply not package the .la file than to mangle it
> > with sed in debian/rules - my contention is that removing the file is
> > the best solution to the harm done by the dependency_libs field.
> [...]
> Hello,
> If you removed an la file that is listed in another's packages la file
> dependency_libs, the other package would be broken. You'll need to
> clean up the latter's  dependency_libs / remove its la_lile *first.*
> cu andreas

That was part of the original Release Goal but, you're right, I left
that bit out of the original post. That's why the list starts with leaf
packages and related libraries.

The data used for my dd-list includes this part of the calculation. It
lists only those packages which would appear to not have any packages
using the .la file in question. That is why it is safe to remove
the .la file from any of the packages listed - AS LONG AS the
maintainer checks that no new packages have added the package as a
dependency since the data was generated.

This is also why the data needs to be re-generated. Not only are there
packages which are listed but which are already fixed, there are
packages which are listed as depending on the removal of .la files from
packages which are long fixed.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpF0PooNHNoJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: