Bug#934785: does not include lis.so driver

2019-09-07 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Dominique Dumont writes: > That said, this requires people willing to create a PR and having the HW to > test. So far, nobody volunteered. Could you have a look there ? Yes, I will. I'd prefer not to have to maintain a fork. Pardon my slowness in response, deadlines make me tardy on

Bug#934785: does not include lis.so driver

2019-08-16 Thread Dominique Dumont
On Friday, 16 August 2019 06:17:48 CEST Adam Di Carlo wrote: > What's better, to just close this bug or should I upstream it? There's already a ticket to track the libusb transition issue: https://github.com/lcdproc/lcdproc/issues/13 I've tagged this BTS ticket as forwarded to this github issue,

Bug#934785: does not include lis.so driver

2019-08-15 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Dominique Dumont writes: > As of lcdproc 0.5.9-2, lis module is no longer delivered. (see lcdproc > changelog) because build dependency on libftdi-dev and libusb-dev were > removed. > > libftdi-dev and libusb-dev are deprecated library with newer replacements. > Nobody stepped up upstream to

Bug#934785: does not include lis.so driver

2019-08-15 Thread Dominique Dumont
Hi On mercredi 14 août 2019 22:21:21 CEST you wrote: > The package fails to include the lis.so module. As of lcdproc 0.5.9-2, lis module is no longer delivered. (see lcdproc changelog) because build dependency on libftdi-dev and libusb-dev were removed. libftdi-dev and libusb-dev are

Bug#934785: does not include lis.so driver

2019-08-14 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Package: lcdproc Version: 0.5.9-3.1 Severity: normal The package fails to include the lis.so module. Which is odd, because I did a local build and lis.so is indeed built and included with the 'lcdproc' package. -- System Information: Debian Release: 10.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (990,