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 KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
