On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:57:22 +0200 Mathieu Parent <math.par...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > 2011/4/3 Neil Williams <codeh...@debian.org>: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00808.html > > > (...) > > > > Let's try and handle the .la file issue across all of Debian. > > dh-make 0.58 install .la files by default > (/usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/debianl/package-dev.install contains > "usr/lib/*.la") This is about "unneeded" .la files. As Sune points out, there are some situations where it is more work to remove the .la file than it is worth. So it isn't a blanket removal, it is about getting a consistent approach across Debian so that issues like the one Sune describes can be more clearly identified. dh_make does not set the defaults in Debian. Maintainers must make their own decisions about which bits of a dh_make setup deserve to be retained in their packaging of that package, according to Policy. Policy 10.2 is the discussion point here. Since Policy 10.2 was last updated, Multi-Arch has changed the "penalty" for getting this bit of Policy wrong. This is about identifying .la files which can be removed to make things easier in Multi-Arch world. > Should we change this also? It is possible that a lintian warning can be arranged to indicate when it might be unhelpful to package the .la file but that is no different to lots of other bits of dh_make which are created at initial packaging but which later need removal or adjustment. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpdh2MR40hbZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
