Bug#908500: marked as done (cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests:)
Control: reopen -1 Control: reassign -1 cups-daemon 2.2.8-5 Control: retitle -1 cups-daemon: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests Control: affects -1 +cups-browsed Le dimanche, 21 octobre 2018, 21.21:13 h CEST Debian BTS a écrit : > On Mon 10 Sep 2018 at 15:16:44 +0100, Brian Potkin wrote: > > Package: cups-browsed > > Version: 1.21.2-1 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > With the introduction of cups 1.6.x the situation in respect to printing > > to remote print queues and printers would have been dire without the > > creation of cups-browsed. However, cups 2.2.4 and later has the ability > > (CUPS Issue #4993) to enumerate queues and printers in print dialogs and > > to auto-create a temporary print queue. This is used by applications > > having the Qt dialog and printing from the command line, although the > > GTK dialog still does its own thing. > > > > cups-browsed is installed by default because cups-daemon (quite rightly) > > recommends it. With the changed situation in CUPS and applications it > > would appear that cups-browsed has less relevance with regard to printer > > and print queue discovery and management. The Recommends field lists > > packages that would be found with the cups package because there is a > > strong dependency between it and cups-browsed. cups-browsed would still > > enhance cups if changed to a Suggests:. > > > > The installation of cups-browsed almost as a matter of course on many > > buster systems also masks bugs in CUPS and applications, as it will take > > over the management of queues/printers. A small example is CUPS Issue > > #5045. Another example is with okular. For me, it will not print to a > > temporary queue; with a local cups-browsed queue it will. This would > > probably pass unnoticed as things stand now. > > The resounding silence is an indication of the quality of this report. > It was probably a naff idea. Closing. I disagree. Although I haven't interacted on the bug, your report sparkled some thoughts, and I had its proper handling on my "to spend some energy on later" list. In the meantime, cups-filters started to FTBFS in unstable; a fix was urgent and I spent the minimal amount of energy to solve that issue. But demoting the cups-daemon ⇒ cups-browsed relationship from a Recommends to a Suggests is something we should consider, and your argumentation makes sense to me. @Till: any opinion? Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Processed: Re: Bug#908500: marked as done (cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests:)
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #908500 {Done: Brian Potkin } [cups-browsed]
cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests:
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #908500 to the same values
previously set
> reassign -1 cups-daemon 2.2.8-5
Bug #908500 [cups-browsed] cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a
Suggests:
Bug reassigned from package 'cups-browsed' to 'cups-daemon'.
No longer marked as found in versions cups-filters/1.21.2-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #908500 to the same values
previously set
Bug #908500 [cups-daemon] cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a
Suggests:
Marked as found in versions cups/2.2.8-5.
> retitle -1 cups-daemon: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests
Bug #908500 [cups-daemon] cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a
Suggests:
Changed Bug title to 'cups-daemon: Please consider making cups-browsed a
Suggests' from 'cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests:'.
> affects -1 +cups-browsed
Bug #908500 [cups-daemon] cups-daemon: Please consider making cups-browsed a
Suggests
Added indication that 908500 affects cups-browsed
--
908500: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908500
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#908500: marked as done (cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests:)
Your message dated Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:19:27 +0100 with message-id <21102018201523.ebc9cb767...@desktop.copernicus.org.uk> and subject line Re: Bug#908500: cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests: has caused the Debian Bug report #908500, regarding cups-browsed: Please consider making cups-browsed a Suggests: to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 908500: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908500 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: cups-browsed Version: 1.21.2-1 Severity: wishlist With the introduction of cups 1.6.x the situation in respect to printing to remote print queues and printers would have been dire without the creation of cups-browsed. However, cups 2.2.4 and later has the ability (CUPS Issue #4993) to enumerate queues and printers in print dialogs and to auto-create a temporary print queue. This is used by applications having the Qt dialog and printing from the command line, although the GTK dialog still does its own thing. cups-browsed is installed by default because cups-daemon (quite rightly) recommends it. With the changed situation in CUPS and applications it would appear that cups-browsed has less relevance with regard to printer and print queue discovery and management. The Recommends field lists packages that would be found with the cups package because there is a strong dependency between it and cups-browsed. cups-browsed would still enhance cups if changed to a Suggests:. The installation of cups-browsed almost as a matter of course on many buster systems also masks bugs in CUPS and applications, as it will take over the management of queues/printers. A small example is CUPS Issue #5045. Another example is with okular. For me, it will not print to a temporary queue; with a local cups-browsed queue it will. This would probably pass unnoticed as things stand now. Regards, Brian. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon 10 Sep 2018 at 15:16:44 +0100, Brian Potkin wrote: > Package: cups-browsed > Version: 1.21.2-1 > Severity: wishlist > > > With the introduction of cups 1.6.x the situation in respect to printing > to remote print queues and printers would have been dire without the > creation of cups-browsed. However, cups 2.2.4 and later has the ability > (CUPS Issue #4993) to enumerate queues and printers in print dialogs and > to auto-create a temporary print queue. This is used by applications > having the Qt dialog and printing from the command line, although the > GTK dialog still does its own thing. > > cups-browsed is installed by default because cups-daemon (quite rightly) > recommends it. With the changed situation in CUPS and applications it > would appear that cups-browsed has less relevance with regard to printer > and print queue discovery and management. The Recommends field lists > packages that would be found with the cups package because there is a > strong dependency between it and cups-browsed. cups-browsed would still > enhance cups if changed to a Suggests:. > > The installation of cups-browsed almost as a matter of course on many > buster systems also masks bugs in CUPS and applications, as it will take > over the management of queues/printers. A small example is CUPS Issue > #5045. Another example is with okular. For me, it will not print to a > temporary queue; with a local cups-browsed queue it will. This would > probably pass unnoticed as things stand now. The resounding silence is an indication of the quality of this report. It was probably a naff idea. Closing. -- Brian.--- End Message ---
Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
Quoting Ivo De Decker (2018-10-21 14:28:37) > On 10/21/18 1:06 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Jonas Smedegaard, le dim. 21 oct. 2018 12:56:02 +0200, a ecrit: > >> I am clueless why that happens. Not sure, but I suspect it is a > >> spurious error happening occationally and if so that a workaround > >> is to simply request a binNMU. > >> > >> Help dearly appreciated either requesting a binNMU (by someone > >> understanding the - to me - strange language to do that), > > > > I have done so (actually it's a buildd give-back, binNMU is when you > > rebuild a new binary version of an existing package) > > It builds now. Closing! Thanks to both of you for helpingswiftly! - 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#911522: marked as done (ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386)
Your message dated Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:28:37 +0200 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386 has caused the Debian Bug report #911522, regarding ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 911522: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911522 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- package: src:ghostscript version: 9.25~dfsg-4 severity: serious tags: ftbfs Hi, The latest version of ghostscript in unstable fails on amd64, i386: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ghostscript Cheers, Ivo --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, On 10/21/18 1:06 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: Jonas Smedegaard, le dim. 21 oct. 2018 12:56:02 +0200, a ecrit: I am clueless why that happens. Not sure, but I suspect it is a spurious error happening occationally and if so that a workaround is to simply request a binNMU. Help dearly appreciated either requesting a binNMU (by someone understanding the - to me - strange language to do that), I have done so (actually it's a buildd give-back, binNMU is when you rebuild a new binary version of an existing package) It builds now. Closing! Thanks, Ivo--- End Message ---
Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
Jonas Smedegaard, le dim. 21 oct. 2018 12:56:02 +0200, a ecrit: > I am clueless why that happens. Not sure, but I suspect it is a > spurious error happening occationally and if so that a workaround is > to simply request a binNMU. > > Help dearly appreciated either requesting a binNMU (by someone > understanding the - to me - strange language to do that), I have done so (actually it's a buildd give-back, binNMU is when you rebuild a new binary version of an existing package) Samuel
Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
Control: tags -1 help Hi Ivo, Quoting Ivo De Decker (2018-10-21 12:08:43) > The latest version of ghostscript in unstable fails on amd64, i386: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ghostscript Thanks for reporting! I am clueless why that happens. Not sure, but I suspect it is a spurious error happening occationally and if so that a workaround is to simply request a binNMU. Help dearly appreciated either requesting a binNMU (by someone understanding the - to me - strange language to do that), or better yet to identify the cause of the underlying failure and provide a patch. - 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
Processed: Re: Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
Processing control commands: > tags -1 help Bug #911522 [src:ghostscript] ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386 Added tag(s) help. -- 911522: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911522 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
package: src:ghostscript version: 9.25~dfsg-4 severity: serious tags: ftbfs Hi, The latest version of ghostscript in unstable fails on amd64, i386: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ghostscript Cheers, Ivo
