Le mardi 11 août 2009 à 08:05 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo a écrit : > I know this is 20/20 hindsight, but this could have been handled much > better by raising bugs against and fixing all the client libraries > *before* removing the libogg.la. It would probably also be a good idea > to discourage the shipping .la files in the debian policy manual and > adding it as a lintian warning. I’d be all for a lintian warning for packages shipping a .la with a non-empty dependency_libs field. However, adding a warning asking to remove all .la files is a recipe for other disasters like the libogg one. If we manage to clean up all dependency_libs fields before the squeeze release, we can then remove all .la files in squeeze+1 without breaking anything in the meantime. I’ve requested to add something to fix this in #534966 but have received no answer so far. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=