2011-04-03 11:00:02 UTC
I'm now getting patches from Ubuntu to catch up the effects of this old
Release Goal. I fully support the removal of .la files  but it would
be good if we could refresh the original goal so that .la files can be
removed rather than applying a piece-meal set of patches to only
certain packages which have been spotted independently. That way leads
only to pain.
Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian.
Andreas: the process you used to create the initial list - is that
available as a script somewhere? Can it be re-run? Can the updated
output be filtered for the libraries which can have the .la files
removed immediately and then passed through dd-list?
(A dd-list using the above criteria and based on the OLD data is
attached - some packages listed in the original list no longer exist in
Debian and the rest of the packages have NOT been checked to see if
this has been done already. Just from my own data below, it's clear
that some packages have already completed the goal but will be listed
in the old data.)
If you are listed in the attached dd-list, it means that the following
tasks should be done REAL SOON NOW in order to smooth the path for
Multi-Arch and comply with Policy 10.2:
0: Check the listed package for .la files in the current version in sid.
1: Modify your package to DROP the .la file completely, if it remains.
2: Reply to this thread (whether you are changing your package or not)
so that any transitions can be managed.
3: File a bug against your own package if it hasn't been done already.
4: Check if there are other packages which have come to use your
package since the initial data was created.
My own data:
Neil Williams <***@debian.org>
libcontactsdb (U) #620444 - Drop .la file
libgpeschedule #620616 - .la file removal
libhandoff Needs a new bug report for .la file removal
libsoundgen #620618 - .la file removal
pilot-qof No .la file in sid.
tslib Needs a new bug report for .la file removal
(Filing those two bug reports myself currently).
This dd-list is NOT the complete data set from the OLD data, it is just
those packages which were listed as suitable for immediate removal of
the .la files back when the old data was originally generated. Since
that time, more packages have been changed and so more packages which
*were* listed as having dependencies possibly using these .la files may
now actually be candidates for removing the .la files.
It's a shame that the original MBF didn't get as far as actually filing
all the bugs or a lintian warning. I've already done a round of uploads
for these packages to clean up a range of other fixes and bugs. :-(
Ce la vie.