Bug#560286: Debian Bug report logs - #560286 gattrib seg faults are back
Hi Bdale, I was wondering if you could confirm whether this bug can now be closed. Neither Ahmed or I can reproduce it, and I think I have a plausible explanation for why the problem was occurring previously. Best regards, Peter C. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1266240195.5340.6.ca...@pcjc2lap
Bug#561906: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#561906: FTBFS: make[5]: *** [tests] Error 1
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:14 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Thanks! I see now that it's trying to write logs into ~/.gEDA which won't work with an unwritable/non-existent $HOME. Perhaps we will be able to fix this upstream (for 1.6.1?). Hamish.. is there any way we can work around the issue for the 1.6.0 build? Can we export a temporary $HOME somewhere in the build tree whilst the tests are run? In the long term, we should make gEDA apps fail more gracefully if they can't open a log file. Dumping output to stderr might work.. although it would change what is output in the case of $HOME being unwriteable - which could in its-self break a more rigorous test-suite that checked expected stderr output. Fortunately for gsymcheck, the output we are testing against is stdout, so that should be ok. I can't think of any tests which rely on known stderr output, so perhaps we are OK here (for now). Personally, I see this as one more argument in favour of logging in $PWD, like we used to. (or was it $(dirname $schematic)... I can't recall). It would still be nice if that worked on a read-only dir. Of course.. there is other stuff gEDA looks to write / read on ~/.gEDA, so we'll have to test those cases as well. Best wishes, Peter C. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#560286: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#560286: Bug#560286: gattrib seg faults are back
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 11:20 +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:52:38AM +0100, Bdale Garbee wrote: The gattrib command seg faults on every one of my designs in this version. ---end quoted text--- We are almost done with packaging the new version 1.6 of gattrib, could you send a sample design, and steps to reproduce the seg. fault, in order to test the new release ? Thanks. I'd also be interested in a stack trace of the crash on 1.4.3. It might be due to the fact that gattrib FTBFS against newer GTK versions. (What is your GTK version?). Even though the package currently FTBFS, there is an old built version on the archive. It will be relying on structure members in GTK which are no longer updated in the same way as older GTK versions. (Yes, they broke compatibility, even if the ABI didn't technically change.) The FTBFS is fixed with a patch in Ubuntu. Perhaps you could try rebuilding the Ubuntu package on your Debian machine, to see if that helps fix the crashes. Grab the .dsc etc... here: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/geda-gattrib/1:1.4.3-2ubuntu1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#549735: geda-gattrib: FTBFS: gtkitementry_2_2.c
In Ubuntu, we have a patch which fixes this. (A back-port of a change from the gEDA 1.6.0 version). You can find the Ubuntu package here: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/geda-gattrib/1:1.4.3-2ubuntu1 In any case, this Debian bug is likely to be closed by the impending upload of the gEDA 1.6.0 packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510993: geda-doc: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-doc Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510996: geda-gschem: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-gschem Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510994: geda-examples: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-examples Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510997: geda-gsymcheck: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-gsymcheck Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#511000: geda-utils: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-utils Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510999: geda-symbols: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-symbols Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510992: geda: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510995: geda-gnetlist: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: geda-gnetlist Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#510998: libgeda: Incorrect licensing terms in copyright file
Package: libgeda Severity: serious Justification: Policy 12.5 The copyright file claims that the libgeda portion of the gEDA suite is distributed under an LGPL licence. This is incorrect - All of gEDA is licensed GPLV2 or later, except where explicitly noted in the sources. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#502959: general: raff.debian.org uses non-free software
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:45 +0200, Luca Niccoli wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: raff.debian.org uses a Compaq Smart 5i RAID card. A flash memory is used to store the firmware. While the firmware is freely downloadable (as in beer) on HP website [1], we don't have the corresponding source code. This is just getting ludicrous. Can we just keep to the sensible dividing line that code executing on the computer's main CPU, _under_ the operating system (not BIOS / SMI) should be free to whatever divined standard. Peripheral hardware isn't designed for you to run arbitrary code on its CPU, and the fact it requires a firmware blob uploading is merely an implementation detail. (GPUs are borderline of course.) Having no source-code for firmware is hardly that different to having a completely open-source driver which does un-told magic by poking un-documented registers in a complex chip. Think Intel graphics before they released documentation for (some of) their chips. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#464275: Patch (debdiff)
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11848710/geda-xgsch2pcb.debdiff -- Peter Clifton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
