Marvin Dickens wrote: >>>>I don't know why you don't have one, but I think it would be a big help. >>>>If you don't have time/serverspace/knowledge/whatever, I can help you >>>>set one up. > PCB is approaching two decades in age. [...] Obviously there are two BTS issues: 1) There is (currently?) is BTS for gschem and friends 2) The BTS for pcb is not mentioned on the gEDA site. > Did you know that PCB is its own project and is not part of gEDA? Well, the geda site is a bit ambiguous on that subject. There is "gEDA", there is "gaf" and there is "gEDA/gaf". And there is this quote from the first page of http://geda.seul.org/ /--------- | Currently, the gEDA project offers [...] and printed circuit board | (PCB) layout. \--------- Anyway, to me as a user it should be irrelevant where the developers draw the line between the projects. > never bothered read the most basic of text files that shipped with the > program. I installed the Debian package. The install did not produce any error and I was able to follow the tutorial. Why should I bother to read the INSTALL file? (Of course, I would, if I encountered problems). I'd spend months, if I thoroughly read the README files of half the packages on my system in advance. And no, if I discover a bug, I usually do not check check whether the project maintains a BTS. Instead I report the bug to the Debian BTS and the Debian maintainer will forward the report to upstream. This system is IMHO more efficient than reporting every bug directly to the corresponding developer. ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://lilalaser.dyndns.org/blog
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature