Bug#716727: geda-gaf: unbuildable on ia64 due to missing guile-2.0

2013-09-03 Thread Peter TB Brett
The geda-gaf source package currently builds quite happily against Guile
1.8.

Is it possible to have geda-gaf with Guile 1.8 on ia64, and geda-gaf with
Guile 2.0 on other architectures?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#169746: Fixed in upstream release

2012-11-20 Thread Peter TB Brett
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.  
Please update the Debian package accordingly.

http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/

Regards

Peter

-- 
Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Bug#323981: Fixed in upstream release

2012-11-20 Thread Peter TB Brett
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.  
Please update the Debian package accordingly.

http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/

Regards

Peter

-- 
Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Bug#323981: Fixed in upstream release

2012-11-20 Thread Peter TB Brett
This bug has been fixed in upstream stable release geda-gaf-1.8.0.  
Please update the Debian package accordingly.

http://ftp.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/stable/v1.8/1.8.0/

Regards

Peter

-- 
Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Bug#567773: The desktop file for kicad and its KDE menu location

2010-03-12 Thread Peter TB Brett
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:51:17 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com
wrote:

 We SHOULD NOT add bogus categories to .desktop files.
 
 Yes.  And we should make sure no package show up in the Lost+found
 toplevel menu section, even when extra-xdg-menus is not installed.  (I
 suspect we have different definitions of bogus categories. :)

So the problem has several aspects, it seems to me:

Firstly, the XDG menu spec [1] is retarded.  There's no way that advanced
ASIC design software (for example) belongs in an Education Main Category,
but the XDG menu spec specifically says, Note that at least one Main
Category must be included in the desktop entry's list of categories.  It
appears the XDG menu spec maintainers are labouring under the delusion that
computers are only used by programmers, secretaries, and children.

Secondly, distro maintainers refuse to use their initiative.  Including a
superset of the XDG menu spec's core Main Categories, by promoting
Science (for example) from an Additional Category to a Main Category,
would be completely in compliance with the menu spec.  Unfortunately, the
prevalent attitude (especially in Debian) seems to be that the spec *must*
be adhered to *precisely* with no deviations tolerated, no matter how
obvious its failings!

Thirdly, having read the bug report again, the bug is that two extra
menus are cluttering the KDE menu on Debian Edu.  Let's have a look at
Debian Edu's stated goals here (from its wiki page): [2]

* Provide a complete software solution using free software and ... tailored
for the needs and use-cases in educational scenarios.
* Classify and package all free software related to education.

Surely, to be of most use in an educational scenario, having packages
organised into *appropriate* menu categories is a *huge* benefit?  How can
you possibly justify your apparent attitude that shoving apps willy-nilly
into the Education category is a reasonable approach?  Indeed, correct
classification and categorisation of apps appears to be one of Debian Edu's
*core goals.*

I'm frustrated about this situation wearing *both* my hats:

* As an upstream of a specialised technical application, I want my
application to appear in an appropriate place in the menu.
* As an end-user, I am fed up of fishing through Education for
barely-educational apps.

Let's not solve this in the way that you have suggested (which, frankly,
appears to be to stick your fingers in your ears and yell, Laaa laaa I
can't hear you! when we try and explain the problem).  How about we work
together to try and solve the more general problem -- and request promotion
of Science to a Main Category in Debian's implementation of the XDG menu
spec (or some similar such approach)?

[1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/menu-spec-1.0.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu#Goals

-- 
Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#567773: The desktop file for kicad and its KDE menu location

2010-03-12 Thread Peter TB Brett
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:19:23 +, Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
wrote:

 Surely, to be of most use in an educational scenario, having packages
 organised into *appropriate* menu categories is a *huge* benefit?  How
can
 you possibly justify your apparent attitude that shoving apps willy-nilly
 into the Education category is a reasonable approach?  Indeed, correct
 classification and categorisation of apps appears to be one of Debian
Edu's
 *core goals.*

Having read Peter Clifton's e-mail and your response, I endorse Peter
Clifton's suggestion that:

- Debian Edu should add Electronics to one of its custom menus
- KiCAD should have xdg-extra-menus moved to recommended

as the best compromise to resolve the issue for Debian Edu for the time
being.

Peter

-- 
Peter Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#510995: gEDA-dev: Licensing question regarding libgeda

2009-01-13 Thread Peter TB Brett
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 11:03:27 Richard Hartmann wrote:

 Is libgeda under GPL v2 or LGPL v2? The copyright file in Debian claims
 LGPL while the geda website claims GPL.

gEDA is currently distributed under the GPL v2.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.