Bug#1019790: eviacam: diff for NMU version 2.1.4-2.1

2022-11-09 Thread Cesar Mauri
Hi Olly I've just merged a PR that add support for OpenCV 4.6.0 and (hopefully) fixes the camera error https://github.com/cmauri/eviacam/tree/master Thanks On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:36 PM Olly Betts wrote: > Control: tags 1019790 + patch > > Dear maintainer, > > I've managed to build eviacam

Bug#950545: FTBFS against opencv 4.2.0

2020-02-11 Thread Cesar Mauri
Thanks for the patch. It works fine. On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:30 PM Gianfranco Costamagna < locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > control: tags -1 patch > control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/cmauri/eviacam/pull/24 > > > Hello, I did craft a patch to make it build, I didn't test but the patch

Bug#915708: eviacam FTBFS against opencv 3.4.4 in experimental

2019-10-31 Thread Cesar Mauri
Fixed (hopefully) in upstream. Source code is here: https://github.com/cmauri/eviacam And also uploaded to mentors here: https://mentors.debian.net/package/eviacam

Bug#922578: FTBFS against opencv 4.0.1 (exp)

2019-10-31 Thread Cesar Mauri
Fixed opencv4 compatibility for eviacam in upstream. Source code is here: https://github.com/cmauri/eviacam And also uploaded to mentors here: https://mentors.debian.net/package/eviacam

Bug#750910: Status of sitplus (Was: Bug#750910: sitplus: Please update to use wxwidgets3.0)

2014-08-26 Thread Cesar Mauri
Hi Andreas, >> Changes are available in git repo, branch >> develop. If needed I could prepare several tarballs. Is enough? > I guess yes if you would clarify the role of libsitplus. Is this > something sitplus would depend from or just an extract for those who > simply want to link their own pro

Bug#750910: Status of sitplus (Was: Bug#750910: sitplus: Please update to use wxwidgets3.0)

2014-08-25 Thread Cesar Mauri
Hi Andreas, >> I'm CCing César Mauri, the upstream developer, just in case he wants >> to add something to the discussion. > César, if you would be willing to spent some time into the packaging for > Debian while we would be happy to help you in packaging questions we > would consider keeping the