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

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

Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:

> The cases listed are the ones where the .la file can be removed.
> Packages with .la files which don't meet those criteria were not
> included in the list. However, it looks like there could be a flaw in
> the original data.

Indeed, there were a bunch of different problems, although mostly with my

> The line in the original data is:

> shibboleth-sp2: dependency_libs links-not-existing-la 

> The original criteria were:

> 1. "no flag" to remove the la-file on next occasion

> 2. only "dependency_libs" to remove their la-file RSN, because they
>    block removal of the la-files on another package (this flag can be
>    wrongly hit if a package depends only on itself - but well,
>    dropping the la-file is recommended as well here as with 1.)

> 3. only "depended-on" to do nothing at this time

> 4. with both "dependency_libs depended-on" to use
>    sed -i "s,^dependency_libs=.*,dependency_libs='',"
>    on all their la-files (I took care that self-dependencies don't
>    appear in this category, but rather in 1 or 2).

> So where is the error? In the original data?

No, indeed, dependency_libs should be stripped from those files.  It
doesn't need to be, really, since it's obviously never used by anything
(referencing non-existent files as it does), but for cleanliness it should
go anyway.

I believe the *.la files need to stay since I think upstream is loading
modules that way, but I will double-check.  But they're harmless for
Debian as a whole.

>> Lintian already checks that *.la files don't contain the problematic
>> dependency_libs setting.

This apparently just isn't true.  I could have sworn that we had a check,
but we apparently do not.  We definitely should.  That's probably why
there are so many problems; I suspect a lot of them would go away if there
were a Lintian check.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: