Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:15:13PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:47:36PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > > Yes. It was a deliberate decision; any package still referencing > > > > > libXcursor.la has to be recompiled. > > > > > > > > > > libtool .la files are serious, serious braindamage. > > > > 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?) > > > > I was just trying to compile a program from CVS that needed that .la > > > > file. > > > > > > > > What is the fix you propose? > > > > > > grep /usr/lib/libXcursor.la /usr/lib/*.la > > > > > > Then file a bug on the package containing whatever contains the .la > > > file, asking for a recompile. > > > > 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) > > 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? Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, RĂ¡pido, Fiable.