Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
Package: lpr-ppd Severity: grave Justification: causes non-serious data loss Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade path missing, even if lprng’s config format may be slightly different. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.7-1-686 Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
hi I am sending this mail to many recipients since I need help - On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: > Package: lpr-ppd > Severity: grave > Justification: causes non-serious data loss > > Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But > after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to > that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade > path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different. /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ; but if you purge lpr-ppd , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap , since it is not a conffile of lprng I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was removed from Debian some time ago 1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile I dont know if the debian-release time would approve its inclusion in Debian/Sarge , though Moreover this would *force* people that are using lpr-ppd to switch to lprng, and this is not what I want: I cannot guarantee that the switch would be 100% painless and transparent 2) another solution would be to change lprng so that /etc/printcap is a conffile ( I am not sure if this would work, though) any suggestions? a. -- Andrea Mennucc "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: > > Package: lpr-ppd > > Severity: grave > > Justification: causes non-serious data loss > > > > Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But > > after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to > > that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade > > path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different. > /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if > lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ; > but if you purge lpr-ppd , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap , > since it is not a conffile of lprng > I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was > removed from Debian some time ago > 1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends > on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile > I dont know if the debian-release time would approve its > inclusion in Debian/Sarge , though > Moreover this would *force* people that are using lpr-ppd > to switch to lprng, and this is not what I want: I cannot > guarantee that the switch would be 100% painless and transparent > 2) another solution would be to change lprng so that /etc/printcap > is a conffile ( I am not sure if this would work, though) > any suggestions? I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't think we should be trying to fix now. The simple answer is "well, don't purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be. (If you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print, which means customizing the printcap...) Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ? On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > > any suggestions? > > I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd > to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't > think we should be trying to fix now. The simple answer is "well, don't > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". > > It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a > conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common > package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap > also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be. (If > you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print, > which means customizing the printcap...) > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer -- Andrea Mennucc "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:20:09PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ? Please contact debian-doc@lists.debian.org about adding it to the release notes if you think it should be mentioned. IMHO, it seems like a minor issue; I don't think the release notes should be a substitute for documentation that explains the Debian packaging system to users, and too much detail in the release notes just reduces the number of users who will read it. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > > > > any suggestions? > > > > I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd > > to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't > > think we should be trying to fix now. The simple answer is "well, don't > > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". > > > > It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a > > conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common > > package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap > > also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be. (If > > you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print, > > which means customizing the printcap...) > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Steve Langasek > > postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050601 13:38]: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: > > Package: lpr-ppd > > Severity: grave > > Justification: causes non-serious data loss > > > > Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng should be a breeze, I read somewhere. But > > after the change, I was left with no /etc/printcap and a dead link to > > that location from /etc/lprng/printcap. Clearly, there is an upgrade > > path missing, even if lprng???s config format may be slightly different. > > > /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if > lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ; > but if you purge lpr-ppd , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap , > since it is not a conffile of lprng > > I see no easy way to solve this problem, since lpr-ppd was > removed from Debian some time ago > > 1) one way would be to have a dummy lpr-ppd package that depends > on lprng, and that does not have /etc/printcap as a conffile If you drop the conffile, it won't be deleted. So, e.g. adding an updated lpr-ppd in the next point release would work - just, that there won't be another woody point release :( Also, just an empty dummy package w/o marking that file as conffile (and w/o shipping it at all) works. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 04:46 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek: > The simple answer is "well, don't > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". Are you serious? You want the users to always look at the conffile list, just in case the package has declared the wrong file at its conffile? And you don’t even consider this an issue? I do. I lost a printcap. Of course, using unstable, I expect things to break and I have restored the file already. But I still consider this a bug. A dummy package would be the nice way. Perhaps even depending on lpr-ng; users do not have to update, they can put lpr-ppd on hold. Bye, Mike -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Member of the Debian project
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:19:33PM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 04:46 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > The simple answer is "well, don't > > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!". > Are you serious? You want the users to always look at the conffile list, > just in case the package has declared the wrong file at its conffile? > And you don’t even consider this an issue? Why were you purging the package instead of removing it? If you don't even know what files are marked as conffiles by the package, why did it need to be purged anyway? As I said, this is a bug in a historical package, not a current one. It's certainly a bug, but for me, working around historical breakage is of a lower priority than, say, guarding against breakage of current packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > /etc/printcap is a "conffile" of lpr-ppd ; if > lpr-ppd is removed, /etc/printcap will still be there ; > but if you purge lpr-ppd , dpkg will delete /etc/printcap , > since it is not a conffile of lprng lprng used to have /etc/printcap but for very good reasons I can no longer remember (perhaps that conffiles need to be only for a single package) it no longer has a printcap. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database
Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 07:48 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek: > As I said, this is a bug in a historical package, not a current one. It _is_ current for the poor sods that use stable. -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Member of the Debian project -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
