[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Looking for maintainer(s) of the sigrok packages

(It's probably reasonable to take this offlist now; no one else has
spoken up as being interested.)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 06:52:19PM +0000, Aaron Brady wrote:
> I would still be interested yes, I'd let it fall off my radar because
> without someone to sponsor my uploads it's hard to proceed and yeah, I aim
> to eventually go for DM status.
> I went down a rabbit hole with pulseview which requires some fairly large Qt
> dependency work to get up-to-date, but concentrating on the core sigrok
> packages it should be possible to get those updated much sooner than
> pulseview.
> I will need to see if that will definitely break / FTBFS the existing
> pulseview version.

Pulseview 0.2 is already not in testing due to a FTBFS so I wouldn't
worry about it too much. 0.3 already supports QT5 which should make
moving over easier.

I think getting the core sigrok packages up to date is a good first
step; probably in experimental during the freeze as there's a dependency
from collectd on libsigrok2 which we don't want to affect.

You previously mentioned using git-buildpackage; do you have an existing
repo I can look at?

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> >Aaron, if you're still interested in getting involved in looking after
> >these I can help with giving things a look over and sponsoring their
> >uploads (with the aim that you'd eventually go for at least DM status
> >and be able to do the uploads yourself).
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> >>Hi, I'm looking for a maintainer (or a team of maintainers) for all
> >>sigrok packages in Debian (see www.sigrok.org for details).
> >>
> >>I've already officially RFA'd the packages a few minutes ago.
> >>
> >>Lack of spare time doesn't currently allow me to keep the packages
> >>up-to-date in a timely manner, plus I'm part of upstream and I'd like
> >>to spend more time with upstream development rather than distro stuff.
> >>
> >>Hence, I'm looking for active DDs to take over the following packages:
> >>
> >>libsigrok-dev - sigrok hardware driver library - development files
> >>libsigrok0-dev - sigrok hardware driver library (transitional dummy package)
> >>libsigrok2 - sigrok hardware driver library - shared library
> >>libsigrokdecode-dev - sigrok protocol decoding library - development files
> >>libsigrokdecode0-dev - sigrok protocol decoding library (transitional dummy package)
> >>libsigrokdecode2 - sigrok protocol decoding library - shared library
> >>libserialport-dev - Crossplatform serial port handling library - development files
> >>libserialport0 - Crossplatform serial port handling library - shared library
> >>pulseview - sigrok logic analyzer, oscilloscope, and MSO GUI
> >>sigrok - Logic analyzer and protocol decoder software suite (metapackage)
> >>sigrok-cli - command-line frontend for the sigrok software
> >>sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw - Firmware for Cypress FX2(LP) based logic analyzers
> >>
> >>Optionally, there are also still old open RFPs for these additional (less
> >>important) sigrok-related packages:
> >>
> >> #669073 RFP: sigrok-dumps -- example logic analyzer protocol data for sigrok
> >> #669074 RFP: sigrok-firmware -- firmware files for various logic analyzers
> >> #681881 RFP: sigrok-util -- sigrok related utilities
> >>
> >>If any active DD is interested in taking over these packages, please
> >>go ahead, no need to ask for permission. It probably makes sense to
> >>have at least the packages that directly depend on each other be
> >>maintained by the same DD(s).
> >>
> >>I'll be happy to answer any questions regarding upstream releases,
> >>shared libs, versioning, etc. etc. However, I'll not be able to do any
> >>sponsoring or mentoring of non-DDs (lack of spare time, see above).


/-\                             |   Mac system message: Like, dude,
|@/  Debian GNU/Linux Developer |        something went wrong.
\-                              |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: