Till Kamppeter wrote...
> On 25/12/2022 10:20, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > Um, is there a reason why we cannot have both in the upcoming Debian 12
> > ("bookworm")? Since Till shows an exuberant amount of enthusiasm in that
> > matter, I'd prefer it the project could benefit from that soon.
> >
>
> You mean both legacy libpd and current libppd? With main binary packages
> being libppd0 and libppd2? Renaming legacy source package libppd to libppd0,
> legacy dev header binary package to libppd0-dev?
No, this was rather to Thorsten, and suggesting we could ship cups-filters
in both versions in bookworm. That was a service for our users as they can
freely choose when to migrate, and maintainers have less pressure to fix
any bugs immediately.
But I admit I have no idea whether it's technically possible, doable in
time, and some other constraints.
[ Removing lpr*-based printing from Debian ]
> > This however should be discussed with all the related package
> > maintainers and on debian-devel as well. Nothing I can afford to spend
> > time on right now given the bookworm freeze timeline.
>
> OK, let us aim for complete LPD/LPR/LPRng/legacy-libppd/gpr removal for
> bookworm+1 ...
Having looked a few other fairly dusty corners I'm even more inclined to
go that way, and for a brief moment considered pushing this by writing
an e-mail to debian-devel right now. But it's madness - to begin with, I
don't have an idea which packages will be affected by this. Also, I'm
not really into printing, so I doubt I have the competence to drive the
process.
Thoughts on this by other folks in the loop (or are you already bored?)
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature