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

Bug#429283: marked as done (foomatic-filters-ppds removes lprng)

Your message dated Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:31:32 +0100
with message-id <201102091631.34569.odyx@debian.org>
and subject line foomatic-filters-ppds: Closing some bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #429283,
regarding foomatic-filters-ppds removes lprng
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
429283: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=429283
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lprng
Version: 3.8.28dfsg.1-1.1
Severity: wishlist


Hi.  I realize this probably shouldn't be filed against lprng, but I 
can't by myself determine which is the real culprit.  Hopefully,
you can better determine where it ought to go.  For reference,
perhaps Message-ID: <slrnf70sc9.v92.keeling@heretic.spots.ab.ca>
and the ensuing thread in debian-user@lists.debian.org would be a 
good place to start looking.  The short version is:

   - installed Etch with CD #1 with Desktop Environment de-selected.
   - installed lprng
   - installed foomatic-filters-ppds
   - foomatic-filters-ppds removed lprng and replaced it with CUPS

the last of which is exactly what I was trying to avoid.

So, is lprng at fault for failing to stand up for itself, is the 
packaging system at fault for allowing this to happen, or is 
foomatic-* at fault for being biased in favour of CUPS?  I suspect 
it's a bit of a combination of all three.

Ideally, I think, aptitude needs to honour a printing system tag 
along the lines of "mail-transport-agent" which MTAs honour.  
Failing that, foomatic-* needs to be told it's unfairly favouring 
CUPS, and it should leave the user's choice of lp daemon alone.  
What can be done about CUPS' rude behaviour, I don't know (and, 
frankly, don't care :-).

I managed to get foomatic-filters-ppds installed using the "-R"
switch on aptitude, but that causes other collateral damage:

      --------------------------------------------
(0) heretic [root] /etc_ aptitude -R install  foomatic-filters-ppds
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Writing extended state information... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
Building tag database... Done
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
  bsh cpp cpp-4.1 dbus discover1 discover1-data gcj-4.1-base gij gij-4.1
  hicolor-icon-theme libatk1.0-data libdiscover1 libft-perl libgcj-bc libgcj-common
  libgcj7-0 libgcj7-awt libgcj7-jar libglade2-0 libglib2.0-data libgtk2.0-bin
  libjaxp1.3-java libjline-java libjpeg-progs libpaper-utils libttf2 libxalan2-java
  libxerces2-java libxprintapputil1 libxprintutil1 libxt-java libxxf86misc1 mdetect
  myspell-en-us openoffice.org-java-common psfontmgr sgml-base x-ttcidfont-conf
  xfonts-base xfonts-utils xli xml-core xprint-utils xresprobe xscreensaver xutils
  xutils-dev
The following NEW packages will be automatically installed:
  hpijs hpijs-ppds libsensors3 libsnmp-base libsnmp9 libsysfs2
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  foomatic-filters-ppds hpijs hpijs-ppds libsensors3 libsnmp-base libsnmp9 libsysfs2
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  cupsys
0 packages upgraded, 7 newly installed, 47 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 16.8MB/16.9MB of archives. After unpacking 59.2MB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
Writing extended state information... Done
Get:1 http://mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca etch/main libsnmp-base 5.2.3-7 [1201kB]
Get:2 http://mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca etch/main libsensors3 1:2.10.1-3 [82.5kB]
...
      --------------------------------------------

Good luck with this.  Yes, it's the Twenty-first Century, and I 
ought to fall in line and run Gnome/KDE and CUPS, but I'd rather 
try and hold out a little longer if I can.  linuxprinting.org
assures me that lprng is quite capable of the task, but the Debian
packaging system appears to think otherwise.

Have fun and thanks for your efforts.  You're all doing a great
job for me.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.iso885915, LC_CTYPE=en_US.iso885915 (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages lprng depends on:
ii  debconf  1.5.11                          Debian configuration management sy
ii  libc6    2.3.6.ds1-13                    GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libcomer 1.39+1.40-WIP-2006.11.14+dfsg-2 common error description library
ii  libkrb53 1.4.4-7etch1                    MIT Kerberos runtime libraries
ii  libssl0. 0.9.8c-4                        SSL shared libraries
ii  lsb-base 3.1-23.1                        Linux Standard Base 3.1 init scrip

lprng recommends no packages.

-- debconf information:
* lprng/start_lpd: true
  lprng/twolpd_perms:
  lprng/twolpd_conf:
* lprng/setuid_tools: false

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 4.0.4-2

Hi,

You reported this bug against the foomatic-filters-ppds package. Since version 
4.0.4-2, this package is empty. Furthermore, the Debian project just released 
Debian Squeeze, which ships this foomatic-filters-ppds.

So I am hereby closing the bugs concerning the contents of foomatic-filters-ppds 
as "solved by the version currently in Squeeze.

If your issue is still a valid one, please say so and we'll find a package to 
reassign the bug to.

Thanks for your understanding and cheers,

OdyX

-- 
Didier Raboud, proud Debian Developer.
CH-1020 Renens
odyx@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---
Reply to: