On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> wrote: > On 2011-04-03, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote: > > I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old > > Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files [0] but it would > > be good if we could refresh the original goal so that .la files can be > > removed rather than applying a piece-meal set of patches to only > > certain packages which have been spotted independently. That way leads > > only to pain. > > .la files themselves are harmless, if the dependency_libs field is > cleared. Harmless, but are they actually then useful? 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. > There might be hard to replace old copies of libltdl in various code > pieces that can only open libraries/plugins with .la files. src:kdelibs > (which is about to be removed from debian) is one such example. I don't > know if there is others. At least if we drop the low-hanging fruit of all the other packages which package .la files without libltdl complications, it would be easier to see if it is hard to replace old copies of libltdl or not. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpkOSkitfWEG.pgp
Description: PGP signature