Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:09:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:15:13PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > 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?) > > You can file a bug, but I don't think it will get you very far. It's > already under discussion upstream. > > > > > 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) > > I don't know off the top of my head, sorry. > > > > > 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? > > a) Build-Dep on libxcursor-dev (>> 1.1.5.2) or whatever it is, > b) re-upload.
But that needs having libxcursor-dev being uploaded to unstable first, right? Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, RĂ¡pido, Fiable.