Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Your message dated Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:06:45 +0930 > with message-id <20090808233645.ga1...@audi.shelbyville.oz> > and subject line Re: Bug#539687: Please restore .la at least temporarily > has caused the Debian Bug report #539687, > regarding libogg-dev: Removal of .la should have been coordinated with other > packages > to be marked as done. > > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. > > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this > message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system > misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org > immediately.) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > libogg-dev: Removal of .la should have been coordinated with other packages > From: > Christophe Mutricy <xto...@chewa.net> > Date: > Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:35:35 +0100 > To: > Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> > > To: > Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> > > > Package: libogg-dev > Version: 1.1.4~dfsg-1 > Severity: important > > Hello, > > The removal of the libogg.la is problematic because at least libtheora-dev, > libshout3-dev, libflac-dev and libvorbis-dev distribute .la which depends on > libogg.la . > > So packages using libtool to build and depending of one of these libs will > fail to build. > > > I'm not sure what's the correct way forward: > * Remove the .la from these packages > * rebuild them so that their .la don't reference libogg.la > * ... > > Kind regards, > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: Bug#539687: Please restore .la at least temporarily > From: > Ron <r...@debian.org> > Date: > Sun, 9 Aug 2009 09:06:45 +0930 > To: > "Steve M. Robbins" <s...@debian.org>, 539687-d...@bugs.debian.org > > To: > "Steve M. Robbins" <s...@debian.org>, 539687-d...@bugs.debian.org > > > Hi Steve, > > Sorry for not handling this more elegantly, but it should be trivial to > fix without flipping about halfway through now. Please bring any packages > you are aware of that are still affected by this to the attention of the > release team and request binNMUs of them. Some of them are being adopted > by other people and should be fixed when those uploads are done, and a > good number of them have already been binNMUed. I'm not aware of the > libsndfile package already being scheduled for that, but that should still > be quicker for you than me churning another modified package though. The > other packages don't need to be modified immediately, they just need to be > rebuilt against current libogg to drop their dependency on its .la
Hmm, you do know that it's your job to hand that list (including all the reverse deps of reverse deps ...) to the release team including the necessary dep waits so we don't have to reschedule them till all succeeded? There is a reason we advise to only remove a .la file once it's (almost) not used anymore... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
