On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:15:13PM +0100, ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es wrote: > Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:47:36PM +0100, ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es wrote: > > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > Yes. It was a deliberate decision; any package still referencing > > > > libXcursor.la has to be recompiled. > > > > > > > > libtool .la files are serious, serious braindamage. > > Thanks for confirming that .la files are serious, serious braindamage, > that's also what I thought when I first saw them years ago. > > Is libtool already fixed to not produce them? Not yet, no. > > > I was just trying to compile a program from CVS that needed that .la file. > > > > > > What is the fix you propose? > > > > grep /usr/lib/libXcursor.la /usr/lib/*.la > > > > Then file a bug on the package containing whatever contains the .la > > file, asking for a recompile. > > Will you postpone the upload of this version of Xcursor to unstable > until all dependant packages are recompiled? No. > May I do a mass bug filing against those packages that need > recompilation? Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature