Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?
severity 1008700 normal reassign 1008700 ftp.debian.org retitle 1008700 RM: geda-gaf -- RoM; Depends on Python 2, replacement exists thanks Reassigning for removal.
Bug#1008700: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?
Moritz Mühlenhoff writes: > If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf > users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm > release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been > removed. Yes, we could certainly do that. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1008700: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?
Am Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:43:12PM -0600 schrieb Bdale Garbee: > Moritz Muehlenhoff writes: > > > Source: geda-gaf > > Version: 1:1.8.2-11 > > Severity: serious > > > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: > > For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a > complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian. It was forked some years > ago, is actively maintained, and still reads existing geda-gaf designs > and library files perfectly. I contribute to lepton-eda upstream, and > actively maintain the lepton-eda package in Debian. > > I do wonder if there's some action we can/should take when removing > geda-gaf to ease the transition for existing users of the package to > lepton-eda? Perhaps replace the package content with dependency > information causing the replacement to be more or less automatic on > upgrades? [shrug] If lepton-eda is a sufficient drop-in replacement for existing geda-gaf users, lepton could provide a geda-gaf transition package for the bookworm release? I can file a bug against lepton-eda when geda-gaf has been removed. Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1008700: [Pkg-electronics-devel] Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?
Moritz Muehlenhoff writes: > Source: geda-gaf > Version: 1:1.8.2-11 > Severity: serious > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: For the record, I've previously indicated that I consider lepton-eda a complete replacement for geda-gaf in Debian. It was forked some years ago, is actively maintained, and still reads existing geda-gaf designs and library files perfectly. I contribute to lepton-eda upstream, and actively maintain the lepton-eda package in Debian. I do wonder if there's some action we can/should take when removing geda-gaf to ease the transition for existing users of the package to lepton-eda? Perhaps replace the package content with dependency information causing the replacement to be more or less automatic on upgrades? [shrug] Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1008700: Should geda-gaf be removed?
Source: geda-gaf Version: 1:1.8.2-11 Severity: serious Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: - Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019 - Also uses outdated Guile - Last upload in 2018 If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please just close this bug (and fix the open issues). If you agree with the removal, please reassign to ftp.debian.org by sending the following commands to cont...@bugs.debian.org: -- severity $BUGNUM normal reassign $BUGNUM ftp.debian.org retitle $BUGNUM RM: -- RoM; thx -- Otherwise I'll move forward and request it's removal in a month. Cheers, Moritz
