* Andreas Barth (a...@not.so.argh.org) [090825 00:46]: > * Andreas Barth (a...@not.so.argh.org) [090824 22:25]: > > So I'd recommend maintainers of packages with: > > > > 1. "no flag" to remove the la-file on next occasion > > > > 2. only "dependency_libs" to remove their la-file RSN, because they > > block removal of the la-files on another package (this flag can be > > wrongly hit if a package depends only on itself - but well, > > dropping the la-file is recommended as well here as with 1.) > > > > 3. only "depended-on" to do nothing at this time > > > > 4. with both "dependency_libs depended-on" to use > > sed -i "s,^dependency_libs=.*,dependency_libs=''," > > on all their la-files (I took care that self-dependencies don't > > appear in this category, but rather in 1 or 2).
> and updated in () the packages that depend on the current package. Updated the list again, this time to http://ries.debian.org/~aba/la/ and will automatically update twice per day. A dd-list will follow soon - not today though (will probably integrate it in the ~200-lines-python-script I'm running now) I also added links-not-existing-la which means that this package has la-files that reference to la-files that are not in Debian, at least not in unstable on that architecture. The lists are now generated for i386, amd64, armel, and triggering a flag on one architecture triggers it in the final output. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
