Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
With the caveats already covered in this thread (excepting kdelibs), are
there objections to a MBF for this outdated Release Goal? We've already
missed this Release Goal once, probably because no bugs were filed
first time around.
[...]
Hello,
I
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:41:37AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
This apparently just isn't true. I could have sworn that we had a
check,
but we apparently do not. We definitely should. That's probably why
there are so many problems; I suspect a lot of them would go away if
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:12:42 -0700
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:33:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Lintian already checks that *.la files don't contain the problematic
dependency_libs setting.
This apparently just isn't true. I could have sworn
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:49:04 -0700
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes:
The line in the original data is:
shibboleth-sp2: dependency_libs links-not-existing-la
The original criteria were:
1. no flag to remove the la-file on next occasion
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:33:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Lintian already checks that *.la files don't contain the problematic
dependency_libs setting.
This apparently just isn't true. I could have sworn that we had a check,
but we apparently do not. We definitely should. That's
5 matches
Mail list logo
