Ron wrote: > My apologies then, Luk was querying if the regular maintainer was MIA, > if you don't think so, that's pretty much all the answer we need on that. > #518037 is release critical though, and remains open still. Is there a > suitable fix for that in the works?
That one is basically down to me. I have found someone on the debian-mips list that is willing to give me access to a MIPS machine. Unfortunately, I've been busy and not had a chance to start work on it. I hope that will change over the next couple of weeks. > On Debian systems they add nothing but another point of failure. > At best, if they are perfectly correct, they are exactly equivalent > to not having one at all, in almost every case and certainly for > this library. Well, until libogg.la was removed all evidence I am aware of pointed to them as being in perfect working order. > At worst, when they are wrong, the effects range from > what was reported in #539889, That was an aesthetic bug at best. > to what has happened here until all > the rdeps have been rebuilt again. For this one libsndfile was working and a change in libogg broke it. Futhermore, the use of the .la file is the default mode of operation for autoconf/automake/libtool that libsndfile uses for configuration. it was not brought about by some custom hack. > Basically all we really need to know from you or Samuel is will this > package be uploaded in the near future, preferably with a fix to the > outstanding RC bug, or should it be added to the list of packages > that will just get a binNMU. Thats Samuel's call, but if it was up to me, I would say that whoever broke libsndfile by removing libogg.la should be doing a binNMU. Regards, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
