Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le samedi, 24 novembre 2012 15.17:44, Bastien ROUCARIES a écrit : On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: I remembered this bug and noticed it was fixed, but badly: do you intend to upload the nice cups-postinst-trigger solution to Wheezy? I still think it is better than Bastien's hack on that bug. I'm also still ready to argue that with the Release Team if that helps. I have join the release team today at debian mini conf paris. It seems ok to fix. Cool. I'll upload an NMU today then, thanks you! Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org wrote: Hi Jonas, Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ I remembered this bug and noticed it was fixed, but badly: do you intend to upload the nice cups-postinst-trigger solution to Wheezy? I still think it is better than Bastien's hack on that bug. I'm also still ready to argue that with the Release Team if that helps. I have join the release team today at debian mini conf paris. It seems ok to fix. Bastien Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201211151600.31219.o...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Hi Jonas, Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ I remembered this bug and noticed it was fixed, but badly: do you intend to upload the nice cups-postinst-trigger solution to Wheezy? I still think it is better than Bastien's hack on that bug. I'm also still ready to argue that with the Release Team if that helps. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-07-30 at 10:03pm, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-07-29 at 09:04pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it in front of the Release Team. I have no other changes planned targeted Wheezy. I dare not include any non-RC bugfixes, and would also prefer the previously proposed two-line patch for this one to keep burden of Release Managers to a minimum. That's why I request that you do the talking when insisting on the more elegant but also larger fix. Could you include patch for bug#682407 ? If you argue about it towards the Release team, yes. The bug is not serious enough that I would've chosen to include it myself. Ok? Shall I include it? Yes please, it will help debugging next stable version, and it is trivial and well tested on other os. Bastien - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-30 at 10:03pm, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-07-29 at 09:04pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it in front of the Release Team. I have no other changes planned targeted Wheezy. I dare not include any non-RC bugfixes, and would also prefer the previously proposed two-line patch for this one to keep burden of Release Managers to a minimum. That's why I request that you do the talking when insisting on the more elegant but also larger fix. Could you include patch for bug#682407 ? If you argue about it towards the Release team, yes. The bug is not serious enough that I would've chosen to include it myself. Ok? Shall I include it? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-29 at 09:04pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it in front of the Release Team. I have no other changes planned targeted Wheezy. I dare not include any non-RC bugfixes, and would also prefer the previously proposed two-line patch for this one to keep burden of Release Managers to a minimum. That's why I request that you do the talking when insisting on the more elegant but also larger fix. If anyone disagrees and want more changes included for Wheezy, now is the time (I'll wait another day to prepare the package). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote: On 12-07-29 at 09:04pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it in front of the Release Team. I have no other changes planned targeted Wheezy. I dare not include any non-RC bugfixes, and would also prefer the previously proposed two-line patch for this one to keep burden of Release Managers to a minimum. That's why I request that you do the talking when insisting on the more elegant but also larger fix. Could you include patch for bug#682407 ? Thanks bastien If anyone disagrees and want more changes included for Wheezy, now is the time (I'll wait another day to prepare the package). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le vendredi, 27 juillet 2012 14.23:27, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
severity 520753 serious
thanks
On 12-07-27 at 11:48am, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
Bug 520753 is about a faillure in postinst script when /etc/cups/ppd
is not present. i am tented to raise this bug as serious, because ti
could break install.
Agreed.
A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has
been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code
into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups.
See the Cups postinst and e.g. c2esp, which has a file under
/usr/share/cups/ppd-updaters/ containing the two only package-specific
informations (DRIVER_REGEXP GENNICKNAME_REGEXP) and a Breaks against
cups ( 1.5.0-2~) which is the version at which this was finally corrected.
This would reduce the code duplication, move more of what is cups' job to
cups, and solve this RC bug (by ensuring that the postinst code only gets run
by cups, so only when cups is installed).
A possible patch is attached;
Cheers
OdyX
From 353726d65c2db847f3ba9b9fd69d1e09fc60614d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Didier Raboud o...@debian.org
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:18:32 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Replace the PPD-updater postinst by CUPS' trigger (Closes: #520753)
- Breaks against too old cups versions.
- Add a ppd-updater file, to trigger with parameters.
---
debian/changelog|6 +++
debian/control.in |1 +
debian/control.in.in|1 +
debian/ghostscript-cups.install |3 ++
debian/ghostscript-cups.postinst| 62 ---
debian/ghostscript-cups.ppd-updater |2 +
6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 debian/ghostscript-cups.postinst
create mode 100644 debian/ghostscript-cups.ppd-updater
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 2f94a6a..f174b3e 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
ghostscript (9.05~dfsg-7) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+ [ Jonas Smedegaard ]
* Clarify consequences of linking against shared libjpeg (i.e. not
setting custom D_MAX_BLOCKS_IN_MCU).
Closes: bug#582522. Thanks to Bastien ROUCARIÈS.
@@ -22,6 +23,11 @@ ghostscript (9.05~dfsg-7) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
* Add patch cherry-picked upstream, to improve error feedback.
Closes: bug#682407. Thanks to Bastien ROUCARIÈS and Chris Liddell.
+ [ Didier Raboud ]
+ * Replace the PPD-updater postinst by CUPS' trigger (Closes: #520753)
+- Breaks against too old cups versions.
+- Add a ppd-updater file, to trigger with parameters.
+
-- Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:54:10 +0200
ghostscript (9.05~dfsg-6) unstable; urgency=low
diff --git a/debian/control.in b/debian/control.in
index 992655e..85f712c 100644
--- a/debian/control.in
+++ b/debian/control.in
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ Recommends: ${cdbs:Recommends},
Conflicts: ${cdbs:Conflicts}
Replaces: ${cdbs:Replaces}
Provides: ${cdbs:Provides}
+Breaks: cups ( 1.5.0-2~)
Description: interpreter for the PostScript language and for PDF - CUPS filters
GPL Ghostscript is used for PostScript/PDF preview and printing.
Usually as a back-end to a program such as ghostview, it can display
diff --git a/debian/control.in.in b/debian/control.in.in
index 05d1310..7db845c 100644
--- a/debian/control.in.in
+++ b/debian/control.in.in
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ Recommends: ${cdbs:Recommends},
Conflicts: ${cdbs:Conflicts}
Replaces: ${cdbs:Replaces}
Provides: ${cdbs:Provides}
+Breaks: cups ( 1.5.0-2~)
Description: interpreter for the PostScript language and for PDF - CUPS filters
GPL Ghostscript is used for PostScript/PDF preview and printing.
Usually as a back-end to a program such as ghostview, it can display
diff --git a/debian/ghostscript-cups.install b/debian/ghostscript-cups.install
index 4cef0b0..b7747bd 100644
--- a/debian/ghostscript-cups.install
+++ b/debian/ghostscript-cups.install
@@ -5,3 +5,6 @@ etc/cups/*.convs usr/share/cups/mime/
usr/lib/cups/filter/
usr/share/ppd/
+
+# Cups triggering file
+debian/ghostscript-cups.ppd-updater usr/share/cups/ppd-updaters/
diff --git a/debian/ghostscript-cups.postinst b/debian/ghostscript-cups.postinst
deleted file mode 100644
index 3bed084..000
--- a/debian/ghostscript-cups.postinst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-#! /bin/bash
-
-set -e
-
-# Limit lp* commands to localhost to avoid hanging. See bug#543468
-lpopts='-h /var/run/cups/cups.sock'
-
-case $1 in
-configure)
- # Do the following only if CUPS is running and the needed CUPS tools
- # are available
- # and directory /etc/cups/ppd exist (see #520753)
- if which lpstat /dev/null 21 \
- which lpinfo /dev/null 21 \
- which lpadmin /dev/null 21 \
- test -d /etc/cups/ppd \
- LC_ALL=C lpstat $lpopts -r /dev/null 21; then
- # Update the PPD files of all already installed print queues
- driverregexp='lsb/usr/ghostscript/'
-
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 14.20:45, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. I shall also mention that this is already implemented in Ubuntu's ghostscript. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-29 at 02:20pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le vendredi, 27 juillet 2012 14.23:27, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : severity 520753 serious thanks On 12-07-27 at 11:48am, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Bug 520753 is about a faillure in postinst script when /etc/cups/ppd is not present. i am tented to raise this bug as serious, because ti could break install. Agreed. A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. Agreed, that's a nice solution. Didier, you listed yourself in that change. Please feel free to join us in maintaining ghostscript: Add yourself as uploader and do the change yourself. If you do, then please split into several commits: First actual code changes, and then (semi-)automated changes (e.g. using git dch -a to update changelog). That way it is much easier to later revert a change or cherry-pick across branches. Alternatively I can proof-read and apply the patch, but will then list it as done by me, crediting you with a thanks after the trailing bug closing hint. For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-29 at 02:33pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 14.20:45, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. I shall also mention that this is already implemented in Ubuntu's ghostscript. I do not find it important what Ubuntu has or has not done. So you shall not mention that - but you may as you please :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 15.17:39, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : On 12-07-29 at 02:20pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. Agreed, that's a nice solution. Didier, you listed yourself in that change. Please feel free to join us in maintaining ghostscript: Add yourself as uploader and do the change yourself. Thanks for the offer, but sorry, I already have too much on my plates currently to add Ghostscript to the pile. If you do, then please split into several commits: First actual code changes, and then (semi-)automated changes (e.g. using git dch -a to update changelog). That way it is much easier to later revert a change or cherry-pick across branches. Hrm. I usually commit without changelog entry, using pseudo-headers and $(git dch --full --meta --release) and hand-edit the changelog, and commit the release changelog. Alternatively I can proof-read and apply the patch, but will then list it as done by me, crediting you with a thanks after the trailing bug closing hint. Whatever is fine for me, as long as it gets in. Btw, this machinery has mostly been engineered by myself and Till (with him doing most of the cleanup and polishing of my ugly code), see #637978, so there's not much point in attributing this small change to me. For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 15.40:19, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : On 12-07-29 at 02:33pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 14.20:45, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. I shall also mention that this is already implemented in Ubuntu's ghostscript. I do not find it important what Ubuntu has or has not done. So you shall not mention that - but you may as you please :-) Pardon my vocabulary then; I ain't native english writer. That written, given the state of most of the printing stack in Ubuntu and the person maintaining most of these packages there (Till, openprinting's main upstream), I do find that what Ubuntu has done is important. This doesn't mean that we can't keep a critical eye upon their changes, but the fact that a change is already implemented and tested by them is still a valuable information IMHO. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-29 at 05:10pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 15.40:19, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : On 12-07-29 at 02:33pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 14.20:45, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit : A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. I shall also mention that this is already implemented in Ubuntu's ghostscript. I do not find it important what Ubuntu has or has not done. So you shall not mention that - but you may as you please :-) Pardon my vocabulary then; I ain't native english writer. Neither am I. And sorry if my response felt rude to you. That written, given the state of most of the printing stack in Ubuntu and the person maintaining most of these packages there (Till, openprinting's main upstream), I do find that what Ubuntu has done is important. This doesn't mean that we can't keep a critical eye upon their changes, but the fact that a change is already implemented and tested by them is still a valuable information IMHO. Agreed, it is valuable information. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On 12-07-29 at 05:07pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 15.17:39, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : On 12-07-29 at 02:20pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: A nice solution to this bug is IMHO to replicate in ghostscript-cups what has been done for most packages shipping Cups drivers: transform the postinst code into a dpkg trigger and let the Cups postinst do the job as cups. Agreed, that's a nice solution. Didier, you listed yourself in that change. Please feel free to join us in maintaining ghostscript: Add yourself as uploader and do the change yourself. Thanks for the offer, but sorry, I already have too much on my plates currently to add Ghostscript to the pile. Fair enough :-) If you do, then please split into several commits: First actual code changes, and then (semi-)automated changes (e.g. using git dch -a to update changelog). That way it is much easier to later revert a change or cherry-pick across branches. Hrm. I usually commit without changelog entry, using pseudo-headers and $(git dch --full --meta --release) and hand-edit the changelog, and commit the release changelog. Oh, sorry: I did not mean to imply that your commit style was currently bad. I just described my preferred commit style in case you did choose to commit yourself *and* did not use that commit style already. But from your comment now it seems our commit styles are similar - or even that yours is even more elegant than mine, so thanks for sharing :-) Alternatively I can proof-read and apply the patch, but will then list it as done by me, crediting you with a thanks after the trailing bug closing hint. Whatever is fine for me, as long as it gets in. Btw, this machinery has mostly been engineered by myself and Till (with him doing most of the cleanup and polishing of my ugly code), see #637978, so there's not much point in attributing this small change to me. You did bring this elegant approach to my attention, which I appreciate. I'll credit you both, then (unless you insist on not being mentioned). For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much simpler solution. the master branch is not intended for Wheezy, I will use a separate master-wheezy for that. I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer scripts. Oh, ok. Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such cases for the Release Managers :-/ Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it in front of the Release Team. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
tags 520753 + patch reasign 520753 ghostscript-cups severity important thanks Hi, Bug 520753 is about a faillure in postinst script when /etc/cups/ppd is not present. i am tented to raise this bug as serious, because ti could break install. What is your opinion ? Bastien fix-cups-dir-in-postinst.patch Description: Binary data
Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
severity 520753 serious thanks On 12-07-27 at 11:48am, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Bug 520753 is about a faillure in postinst script when /etc/cups/ppd is not present. i am tented to raise this bug as serious, because ti could break install. Agreed. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
