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

Re: Bug#539687: marked as done (libogg-dev: Removal of .la should have been coordinated with other packages)

Ron wrote:

> At least upstream seems active on that one.  And the maintainer was around
> to respond to #518037 in March, even if their response wasn't entirely
> satisfactory and upstream themselves asked to reopen it :/  So he's not
> entirely MIA ...  OTOH, Erik, the upstream maintainer, does seem to be
> maintaining some other packages, so perhaps we should give him a thumbs
> up to hijack this one and look after it himself.
> Added to the CC also.  Erik, how do you feel about that ;?

Sorry, what question is it that I'm  supposed to be answering here?

Yes, I am a DM, but I am not a DD. Most of my debian work has been
around the Haskell programming language. I've been pretty happy
with the way libsndfile has been maintained, but if it was to be
orphaned, I'd be happy to adopt it.

AFAICS, libsndfile is currently maintained.

> > Did you contact the maintainers announcing you would drop the .la file?
> > If so, then one could indeed argue that the maintainers should know what
> > is happening. Though now it looks like the maintainers are not aware and
> > most probably think there is an issue with libogg AFAICS.
> Not all of them.  There was mail traded with John Ferlito, who should be
> adopting libtheora, libvorbis, libspiff, vorbis-tools, uriparser, libao,
> so I considered those covered, likewise the other xiph codecs I maintain
> which already have their .la removed.

I'm think I'm coming in rather late on this, but why were these .la
files removed? I've read through bug#539687 and its still not clear.

Erik de Castro Lopo

Reply to: