Hi, Niv Sardi wrote: > as the release goal says if you can > make a case for using it then we should ship
It now appears as misconfiguration of libacl-dev, which explicitely refers in its libacl.la to the removed libattr.la. apt-get downloaded it from http://jk.fr.eu.org/debian/hurd-installer/mirror I just sent this to [email protected]: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- harish badrinath wrote on [email protected]: > I have posted a bug > report,http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639517 Niv Sardi wrote to [email protected]: > http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/LAFileRemoval > IIRC, It's a release goal. I do wonder, how my generated Makefile comes to the idea to expect libattr.la if it is removed from the system. None of my files mentions libattr. This idea must come from libacl-dev. And really in /lib/libacl.la i read dependency_libs=' /usr/lib/libattr.la' Following the prescriptions in LAFileRemoval i change it to dependency_libs='' Suddenly my libisofs source builds without the need for libattr.la. libisofs.la has now dependency_libs=' -lpthread -lz /lib//libacl.la' rather than dependency_libs=' -lpthread -lz /lib//libacl.la /usr/lib/libattr.la' GNU xorriso builds too. So probably one should re-name the bug to "libacl-dev on hurd-i386 depends on LAFileRemoval victim libattr.la" Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
