On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being.
> We're still not so much in a rush. Yes, we *are*. The RC bug count for etch is currently moving in the wrong direction, and having dozens of FTBFS bugs added all of a sudden contributes to this problem. > Freeze is not tomorrow. Let's first fix packages that don't use a correct > libtool, Note that unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, "correct libtool" here means "Debian libtool including patches that have not been accepted upstream". There are a number of Debian maintainers who resist re-libtoolizing their packages using the Debian libtool, because they don't want to carry around the large diffs to autogenerated files. All the packages maintained by the GNOME team apparently fall in this category. > and then let's see if we need the dependency again if the time > is too short to fix everything. We already know that time is too short, because this change will cause literally dozens, or possibly even *hundreds*, of RC FTBFS bugs that will eat up the time of everyone trying to push for release, distracting from the ones that actually *need* to be fixed on their respective packages. If you want to try to work out which packages can be usefully updated to the Debian libtool and submit patches, I'm all in favor of this -- but in the meantime, please don't leave libxml2-dev in unstable in a state that breaks our ability to build large portions of the archive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
