On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being. > > > We're still not so much in a rush. > > Yes, we *are*. The RC bug count for etch is currently moving in the wrong > direction, and having dozens of FTBFS bugs added all of a sudden contributes > to this problem.
Well, it got in the wrong direction because of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=370436;msg=37 > > Freeze is not tomorrow. Let's first fix packages that don't use a correct > > libtool, > > Note that unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, "correct > libtool" here means "Debian libtool including patches that have not been > accepted upstream". There are a number of Debian maintainers who resist > re-libtoolizing their packages using the Debian libtool, because they don't > want to carry around the large diffs to autogenerated files. All the > packages maintained by the GNOME team apparently fall in this category. Last time I looked at some gnome packages, one of the few dpatches was a relibtoolize one... The change has been done more than 10 days ago now, it it were to break dozens, or possibly even *hundreds* of packages, it would already have done so. I still think the number of concerned packages is relatively low. But I'll fix the issue anyways. > > and then let's see if we need the dependency again if the time > > is too short to fix everything. > > We already know that time is too short, because this change will cause > literally dozens, or possibly even *hundreds*, of RC FTBFS bugs that will > eat up the time of everyone trying to push for release, distracting from the > ones that actually *need* to be fixed on their respective packages. Speaking of RC bugs that *need* or not to be fixed, I'm still waiting to know if i can ignore-etch #377418... > If you want to try to work out which packages can be usefully updated to the > Debian libtool and submit patches, I'm all in favor of this -- but in the > meantime, please don't leave libxml2-dev in unstable in a state that breaks > our ability to build large portions of the archive. There are 2 ways of solving the problem: either add the dependency on zlib1g-dev back, or remove the dependency_libs from the .la. The former has the drawback to break static linking using libtool, but is it a real problem ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
