Refresh the CUPS driver recommends (was: Re: Opt out style recommends)

Package: cups Version: 1.5.2-9 Le vendredi, 8 avril 2016, 10.31:17 Josh Triplett a écrit : > I'm not going to go through a full analysis here, but here's a *tiny* > subset of the output on my system, with some annotations: > > (…) > cups Recommends: printer-driver-gutenprint > > Why does cups

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On Apr 12, 2016 00:34, "Tollef Fog Heen" wrote: > > ]] Michael Lustfield > > > In this particular case, I would suggest first making letsencrypt a > > Suggests. Then, I would suggest considering snakeoil for the https or > > just installing with http-only and providing a documented

Re: Opt out style recommends

* Ben Hutchings , 2016-04-11, 02:22: Would it be useful to have a linker option to omit a NEEDED entry for a particular library?  The application could then call dlopen("libfoo.so.42", RTLD_NOW|RTLD_GLOBAL) before it starts using the library, typically right before

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

]] Michael Lustfield > In this particular case, I would suggest first making letsencrypt a > Suggests. Then, I would suggest considering snakeoil for the https or > just installing with http-only and providing a documented tool for > moving to using letsencrypt. You and I both know that we're

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

]] Pirate Praveen > On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:44:09 PM IST, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > >I'd really like this to be an optional addon, since there's no way you > >could know how to integrate with how I acquire my certs. I also > >question whether it's the job of an application to set up

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:18:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an >> optional thing two years back. >> >> 2.automating ssl was not possible before

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:44:09 PM IST, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >Is that why we've been pushing for SSH over telnet for twenty years >now? I should clarify, importance of https and end to end encryption was not considered widely. There were a minority pushing for encryption. But is

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:18:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an > optional thing two years back. > > 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just need to > click/press yes button to get an encrypted

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:35:56 PM IST, Vincent Bernat wrote: >In this case, this could be done centrally, for example in the >letsencrypt package. With debhelper integration like we do for init scripts or systemd. If debian/.letsencrypt is present, it should take care of the

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016-04-11 11:48, Pirate Praveen wrote: > It would be a good time to add letsencrypt support to php-horde and every > other service dealing with sensitive data like passwords. no, seriously not. i am all for having all web traffic encrypted. that's why the web-server package *may* push for

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

]] Pirate Praveen > 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an > optional thing two years back. Is that why we've been pushing for SSH over telnet for twenty years now? > 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just > need to click/press yes

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

❦ 11 avril 2016 15:18 +0530, Pirate Praveen  : > 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just > need to click/press yes button to get an encrypted service running. > > And for those who do not want it, the default is 'no' for both ssl and >

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 1:35:39 PM IST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote: >Isn't it how every other service doing it? > >yes sure. > >but if i install other web-services (e.g. php-horde) they don't bother >me with setting up an enrypted webservice. >the only reasonable

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016-04-10 03:55, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> >> while i really appreciate all the work you are doing for the gitlab >> package, i honestly have the feeling that you are trying to make too >> many decisions on behalf of the system administrator who wants to >> install gitlab. > > I just want the

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Binding *is* lazy by default, but loading of NEEDED libraries is eager > since ELF dynamic symbol references don't say which library they're > expected to be resolved in (perhaps the best *and* worst feature of ELF > dynamic linking). If we

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 13:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] > The major place where this breaks down is with shared > libraries, since, due to how dynamic linking works, even shared libraries > only used in specific dconfigurations have to be listed in Depends.  But, > because the shared library

Re: Opt out style recommends

Tollef Fog Heen writes: > ]] Russ Allbery >> I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary >> package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack >> of a better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends >> processing for

Re: Opt out style recommends

]] Russ Allbery > I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary > package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack of a > better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends > processing for anything below the shallow dependencies in the

Re: gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 10 12:28:29 AM IST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote: >hi, > >On 04/08/2016 05:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> See #819854 for a background. >> >> Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt >in for letsencrypt by running

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016, Russ Allbery wrote: > So, where this goes wrong is the upower -> libimobiledevice4 dependency. > As you say, the dependency is correct (or at least correct-ish): we don't > want to dlopen everything and try to push all those patches upstream. But > this is the weakest link of

gitlab package (was Re: Opt out style recommends)

hi, On 04/08/2016 05:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > See #819854 for a background. > > Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for > letsencrypt by running something like > > apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt > > But I would like letsencrypt to be available by

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 08:34:24AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest the = > > daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency. > > Anyone needing the daemon can

Re: Opt out style recommends

Quoting Sune Vuorela (2016-04-09 10:34:24) > On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest >> the = daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency. >> Anyone needing the daemon can install the daemon

Re: Opt out style recommends

On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest the = > daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency. > Anyone needing the daemon can install the daemon - you shouldn't expect = > libraries to pull in

Re: Opt out style recommends

Quoting Russ Allbery (2016-04-09 03:20:25) > Adam Borowski writes: >> Like: >> xfce4-power-manager -> upower -> libimobiledevice4 -> usbmuxd > >> Is the recommendation from libimobiledevice4 to usbmuxd valid? Sure >> it is -- the library is useless without the daemon. [...]

Re: Opt out style recommends

Håkon Alstadheim writes: > Den 08. april 2016 19:31, skrev Josh Triplett: >> emacs24-common Recommends: emacs24-el >> >> I don't think all but the most unusual configurations need the elisp >> source of the functionality already provided by the main emacs24 >> package.

Re: Opt out style recommends

Den 08. april 2016 19:31, skrev Josh Triplett: > emacs24-common Recommends: emacs24-el > > I don't think all but the most unusual configurations need the elisp > source of the functionality already provided by the main emacs24 > package. Emacs/elisp developers will want this. > > There is

Re: Opt out style recommends

Josh Triplett writes: > Wookey wrote: >> +++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]: >>> For instance, >>> "If is a build tool, command-line tool, or library, >>> already provides documentation in man, info, or text format, and >>> -doc provides HTML or other formats,

Re: Opt out style recommends

Adam Borowski writes: > Like: > xfce4-power-manager -> upower -> libimobiledevice4 -> usbmuxd > Is the recommendation from libimobiledevice4 to usbmuxd valid? Sure it is > -- the library is useless without the daemon. > Is the dependency from upower to libimobiledevice4

Re: Opt out style recommends

Wookey wrote: > +++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]: > > I wonder if debian-policy section 12 should talk about the desired > > package relationship between and -doc? > > The world has changed since the policy was originally written. I do > like to have -doc package for most things

Re: Opt out style recommends

+++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]: > I wonder if debian-policy section 12 should talk about the desired > package relationship between and -doc? The world has changed since the policy was originally written. I do like to have -doc package for most things installed and find it very

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:51:18PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-04-08 21:05:23) > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > >> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off > >> installing things which are Recommended

Re: Opt out style recommends

Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-04-08 21:05:23) > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: >> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off >> installing things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know >> for a while it was the policy of #debian

Re: Opt out style recommends

2016-04-08 18:31 Josh Triplett: Agreed. I turned off Recommends years ago on all my systems, because it installs too many things I don't want (by both the mild "takes up space" criteria and in many cases the "don't want an extra daemon running" criteria). Here's a Python script (using

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing > things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while it > was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done that >

Re: Opt out style recommends

Adrien CLERC wrote: > Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit : > > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing > > things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while > > it was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done > >

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:47:16 +0200 Adrien CLERC wrote: > >> It makes me think I'd love a system where Apt::Install-Recommends > >> could be set to "ask" and let apt ask me if I want the recommended > >> packages for my current request. > > apt already shows you which

Re: Opt out style recommends

Le 08/04/2016 10:10, Neil Williams a écrit : > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:58:04 +0200 > Adrien CLERC wrote: > >> Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit : >>> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off >>> installing things which are Recommended are

Re: Opt out style recommends

Hi, Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-04-08 09:48:59) > On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 12:42:30 PM IST, Tiago Ilieve wrote: > >Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a > >standard system installation (at least to a point where you can expect > >normal APT behavior),

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:58:04 +0200 Adrien CLERC wrote: > Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit : > > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off > > installing things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I > > know for a while it was the

Re: Opt out style recommends

Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit : > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing > things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while > it was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done > that because the system would

Re: Opt out style recommends

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 12:42:30 PM IST, Tiago Ilieve wrote: >Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a >standard system installation (at least to a point where you can expect >normal APT behavior), like a Docker or LXC container, which are >lighter than

Re: Opt out style recommends

Pirate, On 8 April 2016 at 02:30, Pirate Praveen wrote: > I use 'cowbuilder --login' chroot to test gitlab installs on a clean system. Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a standard system installation (at least to a point where you can

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Friday 08 April 2016 10:52 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > Yes, pbuilder/sbuild both disable recommends by default. I doubt > anything will build-depend on gitlab though :) > I use 'cowbuilder --login' chroot to test gitlab installs on a clean system. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: Opt out style recommends

Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-04-08 06:27:26) > On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 9:22:58 AM IST, Paul Wise wrote: > >Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends, usually they are opt-out > >by default. > > I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login > chroot,

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login chroot, > letsencrypt was not installed. May be that is cowbuilder/pbuilder defaults. Yes, pbuilder/sbuild both disable recommends by default. I doubt anything will

Re: Opt out style recommends

On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 9:22:58 AM IST, Paul Wise wrote: >Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends, usually they are opt-out >by default. I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login chroot, letsencrypt was not installed. May be that is cowbuilder/pbuilder

Re: Opt out style recommends

Pirate Praveen writes: > Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for > letsencrypt by running something like Hello! By default [1], apt will install packages which are Recommended when you install the first one. If gitlab Recommends

Re: Opt out style recommends

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > See #819854 for a background. > > Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for > letsencrypt by running something like > > apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends,

Opt out style recommends

See #819854 for a background. Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for letsencrypt by running something like apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt But I would like letsencrypt to be available by default (postinst asks if they want to use letsencrypt, there is