From ms.github at outlook.com Tue Oct 28 21:31:32 2025 From: ms.github at outlook.com (Matthew Sheets) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 21:31:32 +0000 Subject: [Debian-lego-team] NQC packaging and upstream change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am still awaiting license clarification responses for two projects, both of which are part of the "Radar" examples. As you probably saw, I sent out follow ups yesterday. README.md, PLATFORM-Mac.md, and PLATFORM-Windows.md currently link to files under the "_original" folder, so that if users would like to cross-reference documentation from the original project, they can readily do so. There was an effort to update documentation, but I included those references in case the original documentation covers something that is not in the updated documentation. If there is consensus that we are not missing any details that, we could perhaps remove those links? For the images under the "Omni" example (which show how to construct the "Omni" robot), I'm open to suggestions on the best approach to take. The pictures are shown in the ReadMe file for Omni, but I do agree that those images are disproportionately large compared to the rest of the NQC package. In looking a Buildd status for NQC, it shows several as unavailable due to the absence of pandoc or pandoc dependencies. If the packaging system supports it, I did update the Makefile so that pandoc would be an optional build dependency. If pandoc is not available, then Make will skip the generation of the documentation but still do everything else. * https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=nqc Thank you, Matthew From nico at ni.fr.eu.org Wed Oct 29 22:32:01 2025 From: nico at ni.fr.eu.org (Nicolas Schodet) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 23:32:01 +0100 Subject: [Debian-lego-team] NQC packaging and upstream change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: * Matthew Sheets [2025-10-28 21:31]: > I am still awaiting license clarification responses for two projects, both > of which are part of the "Radar" examples. As you probably saw, I sent out > follow ups yesterday. Thank you! > README.md, PLATFORM-Mac.md, and PLATFORM-Windows.md currently > link to files under the "_original" folder, so that if users would like to > cross-reference documentation from the original project, they can readily > do so. There was an effort to update documentation, but I included those > references in case the original documentation covers something that is > not in the updated documentation. If there is consensus that we are not > missing any details that, we could perhaps remove those links? I do not think we need to keep the original, as long as they are in the git history, but I did not check for missing details. > For the images under the "Omni" example (which show how to construct the > "Omni" robot), I'm open to suggestions on the best approach to take. The > pictures are shown in the ReadMe file for Omni, but I do agree that those > images are disproportionately large compared to the rest of the NQC package. If you have imagemagick installed, this: mogrify -resize 1024x1024 Remote.jpg reduces the size to 336k, and it?s still have enough details. Anyway, I think I will split the package in several ones, at least one for the doc and maybe another one for the examples. > In looking a Buildd status for NQC, it shows several as unavailable due > to the absence of pandoc or pandoc dependencies. If the packaging system > supports it, I did update the Makefile so that pandoc would be an optional > build dependency. If pandoc is not available, then Make will skip the > generation of the documentation but still do everything else. > * https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=nqc Good observation, I can change this. Or even better, if I split the package, the doc can be arch-indep and not built on those architectures. Nicolas.