On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:09:55PM +0100, ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es wrote: > Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:15:13PM +0100, ROBERTOJIMENOCA@terra.es wrote: > > > 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. > > Is libtool in progress of getting fixed to not produce them? > (Or should a bug be filed against libtool?) You can file a bug, but I don't think it will get you very far. It's already under discussion upstream. > > > Will you postpone the upload of this version of Xcursor to unstable > > > until all dependant packages are recompiled? > > > > No. > > Is there already a date for the inclusion in unstable? > (I'm using xorg 7.x from experimental but I'm having trouble with XKB) I don't know off the top of my head, sorry. > > > May I do a mass bug filing against those packages that need > > > recompilation? > > > > Yes. > > Is there any web page (like a wiki page) that explain the steps that > a package maintainer should take in order to fix his package? a) Build-Dep on libxcursor-dev (>> 1.1.5.2) or whatever it is, b) re-upload.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature