Hi Brian, Thanks for the pointer to the official site. Looks like the OpenPrinting mirror has been corrected by now. Is it normal that hp-plugin tries to download from OpenPrinting instead of the official site?
On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:52:43 P.M. EDT Brian Potkin wrote: > You are are not the first (nor will you be the last) to have a problem > installing a plugin. This is upstream's responsibility. Oh I've no doubt I'm not the only one; that's why I'm thinking about how the whole situation might be improved. > > 1. Automatic updating of the plugin to the corresponding version - which, > > assuming an environment that uses one of the affected devices, is > > implicitly required by the hplip package for it to be at all useful. > > This is one of my sticking points. Automatic? A user has a device that > requires a non-free plugin for scanning. The user never scans, but is > still obliged to download and install it. Well, no, they wouldn't be. Regarding "automatic", I specifically mean for *updating* the plugin. Initially installing the plugin would still be a manual decision, in that the sysadmin (who, yes, might also be the user) would have to 'apt install hp-plugin-installer'. If they don't need it, they'd have no reason to install it in the first place. Nothing would depend on hp-plugin- installer, except that hplip *might* suggest it. (I thought I already said all that, but perhaps I was unclear.) This is how I'm thinking a hp-plugin-installer package will work: Importantly, it must pre-depend on the current hplip package. When the sysadmin installs it, its postinst script runs 'hp-plugin -i'. Sysadmin has to answer the two prompts to download and accept the license, which they would have to do anyway. Then in future when hplip packages receive an update, hp- plugin-install is also updated; its postinst gets triggered and runs the *updated* hp-plugin, which downloads the updated version of the plugin (with the usual prompts). The implication of this is that the sysadmin is always in control of the installation of the (updated) plugin, and the update always takes place at the same time as other package updates - the sysadmin doesn't have to remember to do it, or else be reminded at a random, possibly inopportune time. > > > There is also the matter of what runs the proposed package. It cannot > > > be from any of the HPLIP packages because, as the Debian Policy Manual > > > > > > says: > > > In addition, the packages in main must not require or recommend > > > a package outside of main for compilation or execution... > > > > hplip could suggest it, though. At any rate, I imagine the sysadmin would > > install hp-plugin-installer (from contrib) themselves. They would only > > need to do that once, and only if they actually had a device that needs > > the plugin to be installed. hp-plugin-installer would be versioned > > alongside hplip and update at the same time, and thereby run hp-plugin to > > grab and install the necessary plugin version at the time (or immediately > > after) the hplip update is installed. > > Any issues with hp-scan would be relected in hp-plugin-installer. Why > not just run hp-scan? I'm not sure why you brought up hp-scan. Did you mean hp-plugin? If that's what you meant, then yes, issues would be reflected, and that's part of the point. With 'hp-plugin-installer' as I propose, the sysadmin would be informed of a problem acquiring the necessary updated plugin, and can take action to correct that, all within moments of the hplip packages themselves being updated. At present, the problem might be hidden for however long until the user tries to print or scan, at which point corrective action by the sysadmin might be inconvenient or not immediately possible. > > > Ultimately, it is the user's responsibility to download a non-free > > > plugin. > > > > Well, to be precise, it's the sysadmin's responsibility to install said > > plugin, rather than the user's (unless they happen to be the sysadmin, but > > then it's a question of which hat they're wearing at any point in time) > > Many users wear both hats. Sure, but that doesn't invalidate my point. There's plenty of situations where it isn't the case - e.g., someone managing a system for a non-technically- literate relative or friend, or the admin of a school computer lab... > BTW, what is your HP device? Color LaserJet Pro MFP M277dw. Best, Brendon