Il giorno gio, 13/04/2006 alle 19.12 +0300, Daniel Stone ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:12:06AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > Please tell me if I have this right:
> > * You don't like .la files
>
> Yes.
>
> > * So you're unilaterally removing them from a core package
> > (libxcursor) with dozens of reverse-depends, breaking all of
> > them
>
> Yes.
>
> > * Even though they're a years-old and very well established
> > technology
>
> .la files? I wouldn't call them 'very well established'.
>
> > * Which upstream libtool has not yet decided to eliminate ("It's
> > already under discussion")
>
> And X.Org upstream are currently seriously discussing whether or not to
> eliminate libtool, at which point you get broken away. This, believe it
> or not, a) improves portability, and b) makes you immune to further
> changes.
>
> > * And which has not been discussed on debian-devel or any other
> > Debian list as far as I can tell (Google search).
>
> Yes.
>
> > Can you really be serious?
>
> Yes.
>
> > For example, if the maintainer of GLib decides (s)he doesn't like the
> > way it handles modules, and upstream *might* at some point change the
> > behavior, is that alone enough justification to change it and break all
> > of its dozens of reverse-depending packages?
>
> If the dependent packages can be fixed with a rebuild, and the reason is
> solid, rather than, 'I'm bored'? Yes.
>
> Is a rebuild really that phenomenally onerous for you? In the time
> spent arguing this point, tons of packages could've been simply rebuilt.
> I don't see where the problem lies, unless you happen to enjoy random
> flamebait more than actual productive work.[not cc-ing #354674] Daniel, I experienced the issue while recompiling some gnome packages. Is sed "s##/usr/lib/libXrender.la ##g" (in the .la references, ie libgdk-x11-2.0.la) the "best" temporary solution by now? ~marco
signature.asc
Description: Questa รจ una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
