On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:17:15AM -0400, sean finney wrote: > executive summary, .la file shipped in libradius1-dev was not > correctly built and breaks any libtool-using software that > needs to build against the package. > i was wondering if i could get a bit of feedback on this one. my > inclination is that the severity ought to be important, though i've > had recommendations that it should be higher. moreover, i wonder > if this would warrant an update to s-p-u or not. the patch would > be relatively simple (sed -e 's/^installed=no/installed=yes/'), but > the scope of the problem is fairly limited... Given the prevalence of libtool, I would call this severity: serious at least. Up to the SRMs whether to allow an update to s-p-u, of course. On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 06:31:08PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > I don't know if this is helpful or not, but the current maintainer of > radius has indicated to me that he may not have time to keep up with > radius maintainership, and I am looking at taking it over. I am happy > to drop the .la files altogether, but I do worry a bit about the > transition for packages that build depend transitively on it, as we saw > with the X breakage. As there are only two reverse-deps of libradius1 in Debian, and neither of them is a library, I wouldn't worry so much about breakage of transitive deps. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature