Laurent Bigonville <bi...@debian.org> writes:
> diff --git a/checks/shared-libs b/checks/shared-libs
> index 6fb812d..4ed36cf 100644
> --- a/checks/shared-libs
> +++ b/checks/shared-libs
> @@ -164,18 +164,23 @@ for my $cur_file (@{$info->sorted_index}) {
> local $_;
> open(LAFILE, "< unpacked/$cur_file")
> or fail("Could not open unpacked/$cur_file for reading!");
> + tag "package-installs-la-file", $cur_file;
I disagree with this check. There are situations in which one has to ship
a *.la file with the package (if, for example, the library is loaded via
libltdl in a way that uses the features of the *.la file), and other cases
where it's desirable (if, for example, the upstream documentation is full
of references to the *.la files for loadable modules, as was the case for
slapd).
Even for regular libraries, I think this check is premature. We still
have libraries that reference *.la files from other libraries, so just
blindly removing *.la files can cause FTBFS problems.
(I haven't looked in detail at the rest of your patch, but it looked
reasonable at first glance.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
