Bug#855961: Cups PPD Update authentication requested

2017-02-23 Thread Jeff Burns 
Package: cups
Version: 1.7.5-11+deb8u1

When doing an installation of the latest cups package, when PPDs can be 
updated, you are prompted for root password on localhost. You can hit enter to 
by pass, and this is confirmed to break even when running as root. 
Unfortunately this breaks unattended upgrades.

Processes that get stuck:

root 11264 0.0 0.4 63060 16884 pts/1 S+ 11:48 0:00 _ /usr/bin/perl -w 
/usr/share/debconf/frontend /var/lib/dpkg/info/cups.postinst triggered 
/usr/share/cups/ppd-updaters
root 11268 0.0 0.0 4336 1596 pts/1 S+ 11:48 0:00 _ /bin/sh 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/cups.postinst triggered /usr/share/cups/ppd-updaters
root 11345 0.0 0.1 65696 5388 pts/1 S+ 11:48 0:00 _ lpadmin -h 
/var/run/cups/cups.sock -p LANIER_5622 -m gutenprint.5.2://lanier-5622/expert

If you run apt-get from CLI to update you get this prompted:
“Password for root on localhost?”

This appears to be relevant to past cups bug report #662915.

Jeff Burns
Engineering Systems Administrator

5011 Gate Parkway
Building 100 Suite 225
Jacksonville, FL 32256
(800) 624 5999 ext 9325
www.efi.com



Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. It 
is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not that 
person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us by 
replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any contained in 
your reply. Thank you.

Bug#855219: ghostscript: Please add gspcl

2017-02-23 Thread Patrik Schindler 
Hello Jonas,

Am 23.02.2017 um 19:51 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :

>> So I may look forward for a gpcl package for unstable in a not all to 
>> far future?
> Yes.

Thank you very much!

> ...and if at some point in time you realize that "not all too far" have 
> different meaning for me than for you, then feel free to ping this 
> bugreport - or roll up your sleeves and join the packaging effort!

Since it will for sure not make it to testing, I don’t expect anything before 
unstable becomes the new testing. Of course there is a short cut called 
backports… ;-)

I’m still not seasoned enough in packaging such a complex beast like gs or 
gpcl. in fact, I’m glad if I can do proper packaging for my planned PDF-Tool.

:wq! PoC

Bug#855219: ghostscript: Please add gspcl

2017-02-23 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 
Quoting Patrik Schindler (2017-02-23 18:24:02)
> Am 23.02.2017 um 17:49 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :
>> [re-adding bugreport and setting same as reply-to]
>
> I did that intentionally but I’m also okay with having some smirky 
> remarks publicly accessible.

Sorry for not asking bfore publishing your post!


>> Licensing issue is different - quoting from ghostpdl/pcl/LICENSE:
>>
>>> The set of truetype fonts in the urwfonts directory are necessary 
>>> for the PCL/XL interpreter to function properly but they ARE NOT 
>>> FREE SOFTWARE and are NOT distributed under the GNU GPL. They can 
>>> instead be redistributed under the AFPL licence which bars 
>>> commercial use.
>>
>> Seems (but need closer inspection) that the fonts are free except for 
>> commercial use and therefore permitted in Debian non-free.
>
> So I may look forward for a gpcl package for unstable in a not all to 
> far future?

Yes.

...and if at some point in time you realize that "not all too far" have 
different meaning for me than for you, then feel free to ping this 
bugreport - or roll up your sleeves and join the packaging effort!

 - 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: signature

Bug#855219: ghostscript: Please add gspcl

2017-02-23 Thread Patrik Schindler 
Hello Jonas,

Am 23.02.2017 um 17:49 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :

> [re-adding bugreport and setting same as reply-to]

I did that intentionally but I’m also okay with having some smirky remarks 
publicly accessible.

> Licensing issue is different - quoting from ghostpdl/pcl/LICENSE:
> 
>> The set of truetype fonts in the urwfonts directory are necessary for 
>> the PCL/XL interpreter to function properly but they ARE NOT FREE 
>> SOFTWARE and are NOT distributed under the GNU GPL. They can instead 
>> be redistributed under the AFPL licence which bars commercial use.
> 
> Seems (but need closer inspection) that the fonts are free except for 
> commercial use and therefore permitted in Debian non-free.

So I may look forward for a gpcl package for unstable in a not all to far 
future?

>> I’m tinkering with OS/400 in my spare time. Printing from there 
>> without embedded graphics always creates just PCL data. I’m currently 
>> developing an lpd-infilter which enables me to just throw PS or PCL 
>> data into the print queue on Linux and I’ll get a nice PDF generated 
>> and placed in the calling user’s home. At the moment it’s just in an 
>> „it works“ state but when I added proper error handling routines, I’ll 
>> release this as GPL OSS.
> Sounds like a fun project :-)

Yes, indeed!

:wq! PoC

Bug#855219: ghostscript: Please add gspcl

2017-02-23 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 
[re-adding bugreport and setting same as reply-to]

Quoting Schindler, Patrik (2017-02-23 16:43:01)
> Am 23.02.2017 um 14:42 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard :
>> Upstream has warned me that gspcl us unlikely to be possible to 
>> provide with Debian due to a core requirement of fonts not freely 
>> available.  Might still be possible to build gs and gspcl together, 
>> ship gs in main and the gspcl-specific parts in contrib - with a 
>> separate source package for non-free fonts (if those are legal to 
>> distribute there at all).
>
> Sounds like a good way to cope with this. If distribution is not 
> legally possible, there is at least one package which just contains a 
> script which downloads the original tarball from the distribution 
> website and unpacks the contents to a certain destination directory. 
> Purging of the package deletes the directory also. Maybe ubuntu flash 
> player package and sun java?

Licensing issue is different - quoting from ghostpdl/pcl/LICENSE:

> The set of truetype fonts in the urwfonts directory are necessary for 
> the PCL/XL interpreter to function properly but they ARE NOT FREE 
> SOFTWARE and are NOT distributed under the GNU GPL. They can instead 
> be redistributed under the AFPL licence which bars commercial use.

Seems (but need closer inspection) that the fonts are free except for 
commercial use and therefore permitted in Debian non-free.



>> Just curious: What are your concrete needs for gspcl?
>
> I’m tinkering with OS/400 in my spare time. Printing from there 
> without embedded graphics always creates just PCL data. I’m currently 
> developing an lpd-infilter which enables me to just throw PS or PCL 
> data into the print queue on Linux and I’ll get a nice PDF generated 
> and placed in the calling user’s home. At the moment it’s just in an 
> „it works“ state but when I added proper error handling routines, I’ll 
> release this as GPL OSS.

Sounds like a fun project :-)

 - 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: signature

Bug#855219: ghostscript: Please add gspcl

2017-02-23 Thread Jonas Smedegaard 
Hi Patrik,

Quoting Patrik Schindler (2017-02-15 16:40:47)
> The GhostScript project also offers gspcl, which does the same with 
> PCL-Data as GhostScript does with PostScript. There's no package for 
> Debian and implementing this seems to be not so trivial, because gspcl 
> generates the same scripts as ghostscript itself (ps2pdf and the 
> like).
> 
> Please add gspcl to Debian. :-) Thanks!

Thanks for reporting this!

I have not yet inspected closely, but it might be that those are the 
_same_ scripts: at the source level, gspcl is a superset of gs.

Upstream has warned me that gspcl us unlikely to be possible to provide 
with Debian due to a core requirement of fonts not freely available.  
Might still be possible to build gs and gspcl together, ship gs in main 
and the gspcl-specific parts in contrib - with a separate source package 
for non-free fonts (if those are legal to distribute there at all).

Just curious: What are your concrete needs for gspcl?


 - 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: signature

Bug#807427: sane-utils: Can not provide access to hplip scanner over network

2017-02-23 Thread Brian Potkin 
On Wed 22 Feb 2017 at 03:55:34 +0300, Vladimir K wrote:

> Any news on this? localOnly check is still active in current testing.

The localOnly check was removed from HPLIP 2.7.7 in 2007

  http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/release_notes.html

after this email exchange :

  https://sourceforge.net/p/hplip/mailman/message/2564760/

It was added to a Fedora-only patch in Oct. 2011:

  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2011-October/673993.html

It reappeared in HPLIP between versions 3.13.8 and 3.13.11 (snapshot's
record is incomplete) in Oct. 2013. There appears to be no HPLIP record
saying why. Perhaps Tim Waugh (cc'ed) could shed some light on this and
say whether it was the intention of the Fedora patch itself to make it
impossible to share the scanner on a networked HP AIO device.

Vladimir, please would you post the 'scanimage -L' output from the
server.

Regards,

-- 
Brian