Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 20:09 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
> > hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
> > good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.
> Please don't get me wrong, but did you check the NEW queue? I've
> uploaded ceph there[1] for more than two months. It's not processed yet,
> but I hope that the backlog of the queue is going to shrink as Squeeze
> is out.
>
Ah! I did not. That is good to see then. :)
> > I'm a little unclear where any additional packaging changes reside, but
> > I've gone ahead and packaged 0.24.2 for Ubuntu, it is here:
> I've also packaged it a while ago and also uploaded to the NEW
> queue[2].
>
> > Note a few changes for policy v3.9.1 including removing the .la files
> > from the -dev libs.
> Well, it's not entirely true. The exact wording[3] says "[...] For
> public libraries intended for use by other packages, these files
> normally should not be included in the Debian package, since the
> information they include is not necessary to link with the shared
> library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional dependencies to
> other programs or libraries. [...]". Of course please read the whole
> paragraph.
> In short, it's not 'you must remove all *.la files'; but yes, I should
> remove them as well. I hope I can check your packages today and may
> write an other mail.
>
Right, its not a must but a should. Still, this seems reason enough to
leave them out.
Since the license issue is critical, I'm going to go ahead and leave the
ubuntu package up for sponsorship so the bug is closed ASAP.
Once your packages clear the debian queue, it should be easy enough to
issue a sync request to override the -0ubuntu1 packages.
Reply to: