On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 14:54:59 +0100, Nick Bailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for reporting this. I believe this is the same issue as > > https://bugs.debian.org/1125282 but I want to make sure before merging the > > bugs. This bug is reported against 1.10.0+dfsg-4+b1; but from the > > description, I understand that it affects 1.9.5+dfsg-1 (the version in > > stable) and does *not* affect 1.10.1+dfsg-4 (the version in testing), is > > that correct? > > > > I’ve asked for a stable update to fix this in stable too. > > Yes, sorry to have missed that duplicate report. Bernd (who is the main dev > on this library -- i've copied this to him) asked me to check out the > stable package because he'd had reports that it would break compilation. > Indeed it does. 1.10 in testing is fine. Building from upstream on stable > is fine. And installing a downloaded deb from a testing repo on stable with > dpkg is also fine.
No need to apologise, old bugs are hard to find and in any case it was useful to hear from you about this issue. > I'm not sure if you are deciding to remove .a archives from binary packages > as a matter of policy? I don't have an axe to grind about that, but the > upstream expects it to be there. Hence, I strongly suspect, the cmake > error. It essentially stops the dev package in testing being useful to > anybody wanting to develop with it. In general I don’t package static libraries because we try to avoid using them in Debian (they make bug fixes and security updates harder to ship, since everything using them needs to be rebuilt). However there’s no policy forbidding static libraries entirely, and if they’re useful to end users, then it makes sense to ship them; so I’ve updated the package to do so. You’ll see that appear in testing in a week’s time, and I’ll update my stable update request to switch to that approach too. Regards, Stephen
pgp4900uyb90z.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
