Bug#766811: spurious library links

Am 17.03.2017 um 16:50 schrieb Nathan Scott: > Hi Michael, > > Yes, please go right ahead with NMU - Done. I've just uploaded xfsprogs_4.9.0+nmu1 I will follow up with the XFS > folks when I can. debdiff is attached. It slightly differs from Marco's original patch. Instead of disabling the

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Hi Michael, Yes, please go right ahead with NMU - I will follow up with the XFS folks when I can. thanks! On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > thanks for your quick reply > > Am 17.03.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Nathan Scott: > >> So this NMU

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Hi Nathan, thanks for your quick reply Am 17.03.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Nathan Scott: >> So this NMU happened, but unfortunately your followup maintainer upload, >> i.e. 4.5.0 did not include the changes from the NMU. > > (d'oh, these changes needs to be sent upstream to the kernel.org >

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Hi Michael, > So this NMU happened, but unfortunately your followup maintainer upload, > i.e. 4.5.0 did not include the changes from the NMU. (d'oh, these changes needs to be sent upstream to the kernel.org XFS list) > Nathan, could you make another upload including the fix from Marco? I'm

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Hi Nathan On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:20:23 -0500 (EST) Nathan Scott wrote: > > Should I NMU? > > Please go right ahead Marco - many thanks! So this NMU happened, but unfortunately your followup maintainer upload, i.e. 4.5.0 did not include the changes from the NMU. Nathan,

Bug#766811: spurious library links

- Original Message - > [..] > Right. Nathan, this code path is not used on Red Hat and SuSE, which > already implemented a merged /usr, and it has always been wrong on > Debian: I think it should just be removed from the upstream package. > Should I NMU? Please go right ahead Marco -

Bug#766811: spurious library links

On Feb 06, Jakub Wilk wrote: > AFAICS this is the code responsible for creating /lib/libfoo <-> > /usr/lib/libfoo symlinks (see include/buildmacros:79): > > if [ "x$(shell readlink -f $(PKG_LIB_DIR))" != \ > "x$(shell readlink -f $(PKG_ROOT_LIB_DIR))" ]; then \ >

Bug#766811: spurious library links

* Marco d'Itri , 2016-02-06, 01:58: I can still see them in the current version: You are right, I was fooled because the extra files disappear if you rebuild the package: md@bongo:/tmp/xfs/xfsprogs-4.3.0+nmu1$ find debian/|grep libhandle debian/xfslibs-dev/lib/libhandle.so

Bug#766811: spurious library links

On Jan 24, Jakub Wilk wrote: > I can still see them in the current version: You are right, I was fooled because the extra files disappear if you rebuild the package: md@bongo:/tmp/xfs/xfsprogs-4.3.0+nmu1$ find debian/|grep libhandle debian/xfslibs-dev/lib/libhandle.so

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Control: found -1 4.3.0 * Marco d'Itri , 2014-10-26, 02:48: These links do not appear to have any purpose and should be removed: /lib/libhandle.a -> /usr/lib/libhandle.a /lib/libhandle.la -> /usr/lib/libhandle.la /usr/lib/libhandle.so -> /lib/libhandle.so I can still see them

Bug#766811: spurious library links

On Oct 26, Marco d'Itri wrote: > These links do not appear to have any purpose and should be removed: > > /lib/libhandle.a -> /usr/lib/libhandle.a > /lib/libhandle.la -> /usr/lib/libhandle.la > /usr/lib/libhandle.so -> /lib/libhandle.so > > Also, policy forbids to thip the .la

Bug#766811: spurious library links

Package: xfslibs-dev Version: 3.2.1 Severity: normal These links do not appear to have any purpose and should be removed: /lib/libhandle.a - /usr/lib/libhandle.a /lib/libhandle.la - /usr/lib/libhandle.la /usr/lib/libhandle.so - /lib/libhandle.so Also, policy forbids to thip the .la files at all