Georges Khaznadar wrote: > Hello Barry, > > I did not receive the bug reports first, because they were not directed > to ktechlab's maintainer (me). > > Please, can you confirm that I understood correctly the situation? This > what I understood: > > gpsim is no longer developed, and this package has two RC bugs. > ktechlab depends on gpsim > Somebody is asking to remove the package ktechlab. > > --- > > If my analysis is right, I propose the following: add a configuration > flag --without-gpsim for the script configure, and try to isolate the > code to be removed to avoid binding ktechlab's code to gpsim. > > Currently, my students, my colleagues and I do rely on ktechlab's > features to simulate simple circuits made of elementary components. We > do not need to simulate PIC microcontrollers, so we do not need the > gpsim part. > > Then the package ktechlab should not be removed, its features should be > reduced. > > If somebody revives later gpsim, we can create a new package, for > example named ktechlab-pic, which may provide "ktechlab". > > What do you think about it? > > Barry deFreese a écrit : >> tags 563781 + moreinfo >> >> thank you >> >> Hi, >> >> I understand the need to remove this for gpsim but I would prefer that we >> get some feedback from the >> maintainer since he seems to have been keeping this package up to date. >> >> Georges, >> >> Are you OK with the removal of ktechlab? If not, do you have some solution >> for the gpsim dependency? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Barry deFreese >> Debian FTP Assistant >> > Georges,
Yes, that pretty much sums it up correctly. Thanks, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
