On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:39:46 +0200 Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm happy that somebody did this MBF, it was thinking about doing this > for a long time but never had the time to really look at it. > > Some package have .la files that depends against not existing .la > files. These can be found by looking at links-not-existing-la tag in > aba script output. Let's get the first phase of dependency_libs sorted out and then look at which ones remain with links-not-existing-la. There's enough to do right now with just the dependency_libs. I'm not aware of any actual problems arising from links-not-existing-la - do you have evidence that such .la files have caused build errors? Yes, it's untidy to have dangling links but if the .la file is being cleaned up to remove dependency_libs or removed entirely then the links will be removed anyway, whether those links exist or not. > I know that the release goal is to remove (almost) all .la files but > shouldn't the severity of the bug filled against these package be > raised? I see no reason for a severity higher than 'normal'. This Release Goal is about preventing problems in the future - currently, these packages build correctly, the fix is trivial and should NMU's be required we can deal with that later. There are probably quite a few QA packages which will need attention as a result of this MBF. I'll take a look at that part of the list after I've completed a few more phases. Severity ping-pong won't get these bugs fixed any quicker. Despite appearances, bug severity is not a good predictor of maintainer activity levels across the entire archive outside of a release freeze. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpgFb5szME5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature