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 ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpF0PooNHNoJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature