tags 682963 +moreinfo thanks Le vendredi, 27 juillet 2012 14.13:33, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Package: lsb-printing > Version: 4.1+Debian7 > Severity: normal > > ghostscript-cups is only generally usable together with cups. > > If intent of lsb-printing is to _ensure_ that related packages are > installed, then also depend on cups (and possibly colord as well), > because ghostscript-cups only recommends it.
The intent of lsb-printing is to ensure that the mandated LSB interfaces are present. The "Linux Standard Base Printing Specification 4.1" [0] requires libcups, libcupsimage and the foomatic-rip and ghostscript executables. [0] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Printing/LSB- Printing/book1.html (I shall also note that Recommends are supposed to be pulled in "in all but unusual intallations", so a normal installation of lsb-printing will pull cups.) > If intent of lsb-printing is only to _encourage_ that cups is installed > then it makes better sense to only recommend ghostscript-cups, because > it really only makes sense to install together with cups. The addition of ghostscript-cups has been triggered by the Launchpad bug #385606, in particular in comment #6 by Till Kamppeter. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/385606/comments/6 To completely fix this bug (…) the lsb package (because the LSB requires that the CUPS Raster driver interface is present) must have a "Depends: ghostscript-cups". On my side, as LSB maintainer, I'm not particularly inclined to change this: lsb-printing is not made to be a useful meta-package per se; its purpose is to provide required program-level interfaces and I see no bug in that regard. Till, Jonas: opinions ? Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org