On Saturday 11 July 2009 20:54:09 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > gs-esp or gs-gpl did not ever provide a working CUPS. So they should > not depend on CUPS components. Moreover, this CUPS component is > believed to not even exist back when gs-esp and gs-gpl were real > packages.
I agree that they should not depend on cups. However, in lenny, if I remember correctly, installing cups and gs-esp/gpl was enough (for me) to have a working cups system. Upgrading that system must not result in a broken system: otherwise the upgrade process is broken! > the cups package needs to ensure that it works properly. The package > maintainer of cups seems to consider it sufficient to recommend (not > depend on) ghostscript-cups. As a user, I don't particularly care which package solves the problem. However, without knowing anything about the details, I would have expected gs-esp/gpl to depend on ghostscript-cups and for ghostscript-cups to NOT depend on cups. My understanding is that cups is functional in some configurations without ghostscript but that the former gs-gpl/esp packages provided the information cups needed whether cups was installed or not. Is that wrong? If I am right, the transition packages should work the same way (or they could depend on some other new package, say ghostscript-cups-min, which handles installing the necessary files without actually depending on cups). If that is really not possible, then at an absolute minimum, gs-esp/gpl should include a NEWS file explaining that if cups is being used, it is necessary to now manually install ghostscript-cups. > Thanks for your concern. Beware that a bugreport being "closed" does > not mean that your input is no longer appreciated, just that the issue > is considered solved. So if you disagree, then feel free to provide > additional info for our consideration. I realise that it is always difficult to solve upgrade issues across packages. However, as a user I cannot accept that the upgrade breaks, with not even any warnings! Maybe the fix should be in cups, I don't know, but my naive expectation is that the fix should be in the gs transitional packages. If I am wrong about the way the former packages worked please let me know and I will take my complaints to the cups maintainer instead! Thanks for taking the time to read this, and sorry for labouring the point. I am just trying to avoid a continuous stream of identical bug reports being generated as squeeze is prepared for shipping and bad publicity for Debian once squeeze ships. Graham -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
