Bug#1042739: O: repetier-host -- host controller for RepRap style 3D printers
Hi Bastian,
I think you mean repsnapper rather than repetier-host?
repsnapper is another story. I think we can skip that. Yes it needs to be ported to gtk3. But for the 3D printer market it seems to me that repsnapper is less important. It is open source. And it is supposed to be used on pure open source 3D printer (Prusa i3).
But another open source slicer program (cura), made by Ultimaker, now dominates the market. So it is not very important right now.
repsnapper can be removed. Will have less impact. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong or someone have different idea.
But repetier-host is different. It is written in C# and build by Mono. I think it is not related to GTK3.
repetier-host, due to its non-free property on Windows, there are still some old men. Or some artisst, that are used to repetier-host on Windows.
When we sell some printers (non Ultimaker printers) to those schools, if their computer doesn't have valid Licensed Windows, we will ship Debian with repetier-host for those artists. If they have Windows, we will install repetier-host for them as repetier-host is non-free but free-of-cost on Windows.
It is hard to tell them to learn cura. Cura actually works better on technical aspect, but since they are artists they have some post-processing skills so they don't really care the little-less quality of slicing. They just want something familiar and just work as before.
And for the local market I can say that repetier-host is still used a lot. Not sure why popcon is so less. I remember I did turn on popcon on those installations.
So that's why I'm still maintaining 0.85 on Debian. Just as a backend solution. If you don't mind, I will re-introduce it into Debian.
Yours,
Paul
Hi Paul,
Am 03.08.23 um 01:11 schrieb Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu):
> Hi Bastian,
>
> I'd like to know why you can orphan my package?
In my observation, it is not standardized by the Policy but accepted
practice to file orphan bugs for other mainainers' packages that are
obviously not maintained anymore.
> The problem here is repetier-host is still working.
> And why it is not upgrading to 2.x.x is because 0.85 is the last open
> source version we can have.
> Since 0.95 the upstream choose to close source. So the open source
> community can only use 0.85.
I did not consider to investigate a license change or check whether the
program was still available as source. I am very sorry that it went this
way and will do everything to rectify this. May I suggest that I port
the package to gtk3 and reintroduce it to Debian?
> And 0.85 is still working quite well with most of the 3D printers.
>
> Yours,
> Paul
Yours,
Bastian
Reply to: