On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 02:33:20PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Someone apparently made a commit to the autoremoval hinter that makes
> it mark packages unrelated to an RC-bug package getting marked for
> autoremoval.
That's not what has happened.
> Could someone please look into this?
The b
Dev list,
Someone apparently made a commit to the autoremoval hinter that makes
it mark packages unrelated to an RC-bug package getting marked for
autoremoval.
Could someone please look into this?
Thanks!
Martin-Éric
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:38 AM Debian testing autoremoval watch
wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
> for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
> system with adequate.
piuparts.debian.org does this automatically (obviously only for stuff
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> I thought there might be something that could be done here.
adequate has an incompatible-licenses tag that probably could be used
for this. Just install all rdeps of cups and check all packages on the
system with adequate.
--
bye,
pabs
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> - What tools should I be using to identify which of these will be
> undistributable constructs? Aka: how, given a list of source packages,
> can I determine which are GPL-2-only in the codepaths that link against
> CUPS?
> [CUPS-links-to] CUPS dynamically links agai
(Adding d-legal)
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("CUPS GPL → Apache license change, how to
proceed?"):
> tl,dr; CUPS has moved from "GPL-2.0 with AOSDL exception" to
> "Apache-2.0"; how should the license incompatibilities be enforced?
This reply is going to be annoying, I fear:
> Some questions a
Le mardi, 28 janvier 2014, 16.07:34 Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
> On Sun 2013-12-22 14:12:40 -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > #3 Hope that GMP is relicensed to GPL2+/LGPLv3+
>
> On Tue 2014-01-14 04:53:51 -0500, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > 2) GnuTLS
> >
> >2.x is useable but deprecated
On Sun 2013-12-22 14:12:40 -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> #3 Hope that GMP is relicensed to GPL2+/LGPLv3+
On Tue 2014-01-14 04:53:51 -0500, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> 2) GnuTLS
>2.x is useable but deprecated, 3.x is GPLv3+ through GMP. We're back
>to "talk to the FSF to license GMP b
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:03:04PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Alternately, does anyone know anyone from the polarssl community who we
> could cajole into patching that TLS implementation into CUPS?
I'd like to point out that PolarSSL doesn't correctly implement TLS 1.0
since it doesn't su
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Daniel Kahn Gillmor , 2014-01-13, 23:03:
> >if the only axis we're measuring along is cryptographic security,
> >then protecting against passive attackers (eavesdroppers) is
> >clearly better than not doing so.
> >
> >but if people think that CUPS' TLS pro
* Daniel Kahn Gillmor , 2014-01-13, 23:03:
if the only axis we're measuring along is cryptographic security, then
protecting against passive attackers (eavesdroppers) is clearly better
than not doing so.
but if people think that CUPS' TLS protects them against active
attackers, and they use t
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le lundi, 13 janvier 2014, 17.38:12 Didier Raboud a écrit :
>> Le samedi, 11 janvier 2014, 14.22:28 Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
>> > 0) ask CUPS to move from GPL2 to GPL2+ (with or without OpenSSL
>> > exception)
>>
>> As askin
Le mardi, 14 janvier 2014, 10.53:51 Didier '' Raboud a écrit :
> 3) Apple CDSA / libsecurity
>From [1], this is currently being deprecated by Apple from OSX
>v10.7.
Meh. The link should have been
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/security/conceptual/cryptoservices/CDSA
Le lundi, 13 janvier 2014, 17.38:12 Didier Raboud a écrit :
> Le samedi, 11 janvier 2014, 14.22:28 Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
> > 0) ask CUPS to move from GPL2 to GPL2+ (with or without OpenSSL
> > exception)
>
> As asking generally can't hurt, I have filed
> https://cups.org/str.php?L4337
On 01/13/2014 11:38 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> That would be quite a bold move to take. The one aspect that puzzles me
> most is: in which ways "no TLS security" is better than "incompletely
> secure TLS"?
if the only axis we're measuring along is cryptographic security, then
protecting
Hi Daniel, and thanks for the insightful response,
Le samedi, 11 janvier 2014, 14.22:28 Daniel Kahn Gillmor a écrit :
> There is a fourth way forward -- loath though i am to propose it --
> which is to avoid enabling TLS in CUPS at all until upstream gets
> their act together and does something se
Hi Ian,
On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The argument I would make (because I believe in it) is that lack of
> good cryptographic software is a bigger threat to the freedom of users
> than tivoisation (and, the other downsides of GPLv2 compared to v3).
absolutly agreed! Please go
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: CUPS is now linked against OpenSSL"):
> Isn't GMP an official GNU project? I thought the FSF had an
> organization-wide policy to relicense all of their packages to v3 or
> later.
Perhaps we might be able to persaude them to make an exception for
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> On 01/11/2014 02:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> 1) ask GMP to switch back from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+ (it made the change
>> in 4.2.2). Does anyone have a strong
> Bah. This was supposed to say "Does anyone have a strong relationship
> with GMP maintainers who
On 01/11/2014 02:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 1) ask GMP to switch back from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2+ (it made the change
> in 4.2.2). Does anyone have a strong
Bah. This was supposed to say "Does anyone have a strong relationship
with GMP maintainers who could open this conversation with the
On 01/11/2014 11:55 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> So as far as CUPS is concerned, I see three ways forward:
>
> 1) revert the switch to OpenSSL and link against GnuTLS 2. This
>basically postpones the question to the moment when GnuTLS 2 is
>removed from Debian. As I understood the thr
El sáb, 11 de ene 2014 a las 10:41 , Russ Allbery
escribió:
Matthias Klumpp writes:
Changing this would only mean that CUPS forks have the option to be
distributed under GPLv3. I don't see a reason why Apple should be
against this.
Apple appears to be against anything containing the phras
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:24:16PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> > package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> >
Matthias Klumpp writes:
> Changing this would only mean that CUPS forks have the option to be
> distributed under GPLv3. I don't see a reason why Apple should be
> against this.
Apple appears to be against anything containing the phrase GPLv3, to the
extent that their employees were even forbidd
2014/1/11 Andreas Metzler :
> Svante Signell wrote:
> [...]
>> What are the chances of cups re-licensing (dual-licensing) to GPL2+?
>> This would be a step in the right direction. (in worst case use some
>> other software package than cups as default for printing)
>
> I'd guess minimal, iirc Apple
Svante Signell wrote:
[...]
> What are the chances of cups re-licensing (dual-licensing) to GPL2+?
> This would be a step in the right direction. (in worst case use some
> other software package than cups as default for printing)
I'd guess minimal, iirc Apple has no love for GPLv3.
cu Andreas
--
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> GPL-2 only with an OpenSSL exception.
> Now, as far as I understood the th
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 17:55 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this "GnuTLS in Debian" thread triggered my switch of the src:cups
> package from linking against GnuTLS to now link against OpenSSL. CUPS is
> GPL-2 only with an OpenSSL exception.
>
> Today, Andreas rightly pointed t
[Joey Hess]
> Probably making the print server task install it instead of lpr, which
> would have a side effect of making sure it's on CD#1 if it's not
> already. Probably also demoting the lpr package to optional and moving
> cups from there to standard. Possibly making lsb depend on part of cups
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 01:44, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:53AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > For the vast majority of situations, it's incredibly easier to configure,
> > and usually more reliable about output, than lprng.
>
> Implying that there are circumstances where CUP
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:53AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> For the vast majority of situations, it's incredibly easier to configure,
> and usually more reliable about output, than lprng.
Implying that there are circumstances where CUPS will produce valid output,
and lprng will not? I'm inte
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030802 10:05]:
> CUPS is configurable via ordinary text configuration files like most
> Unix programs, a web interface (which is what I use), GNOME or KDE
> frontends, probably a number of miscelleaneous toolkit frontends, too...
>
> Personally, I'm surprised t
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 23:31, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:52:04PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> > However, I am biased, as I package the GNOME CUPS packages... :)
>
> And as a random comment, it's really sad that a printing system would have
> any sort of dependency whatsoever on
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:52:04PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> As a random reply...
> However, I am biased, as I package the GNOME CUPS packages... :)
And as a random comment, it's really sad that a printing system would have
any sort of dependency whatsoever on Gnome (or KDE, for that matter).
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> The last time I tried to use CUPS, I found it to be so user friendly
> that I couldn't get it to do anything useful. Very pretty, less
> functional; and the documentation was entirely inadequate.
>
> On the other hand, whi
Keegan Quinn wrote:
> FWIW, I've had very good experiences with the CUPS in unstable, so
> I'd not object to this. OTOH, installing it without it being 'default'
> is already quite trivial. What would this change entail, exactly?
Probably making the print server task install it instead of lpr, w
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:49:59PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Do we actually need a default print service at all? Mail is much more
> fundamental, for example, but lots of computers these days don't have a
> printer attached at all.
We needn't install a print service by default but if someone
On pe, 2003-08-01 at 12:32, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> It is a good solution for any user level with most common printers/needs,
> thus it
> should be the default (IMHO).
Do we actually need a default print service at all? Mail is much more
fundamental, for example, but lots of compu
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:35:13AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> FWIW, I've had very good experiences with the CUPS in unstable, so
> I'd not object to this. OTOH, installing it without it being 'default'
> is already quite trivial. What would this change entail, exactly?
So i had/have either in
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So am I. To bad it isn't lpr compatible at all (at least not
> lprng-lpr).
Well, lprng isn't lpr... but if there are clienty things you want,
you could probably use lprng's clients with CUPS's lpr server.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the
Hi Cyrille!
You wrote:
> I'm mostly using its lpr-compatible command-line interface.
So am I. To bad it isn't lpr compatible at all (at least not
lprng-lpr).
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:38:55PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I believe it would be a good idea if the default print system in the
> next release of Debian (Sarge) is changed to CUPS. CUPS is a more
> complete, more userfriendly and RFC complient printing system.
FWIW, I've had very good
Le Thu, Jul 31, 2003, à 03:09:15PM +0100, Ross Burton a écrit:
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:00, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> > if only gnome-cups-manager wasn't leaking memory like a CPU leaks
> > heat...)
>
> Terribly sorry about this. It's only gnome-cups-icon which leaks like
> mad, so you can kill
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:00, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> if only gnome-cups-manager wasn't leaking memory like a CPU leaks
> heat...)
Terribly sorry about this. It's only gnome-cups-icon which leaks like
mad, so you can kill that and use eggcups instead (looks almost
identical).
I'll be removing e
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:52:04PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 14:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > The last time I tried to use CUPS, I found it to be so user friendly
> > that I couldn't get it to do anything useful. Very pretty, less
> > functional; and the documentation wa
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:38:55PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >
> > I believe it would be a good idea if the default print system in the
> > next release of Debian (Sarge) is changed to CUPS. CUPS is a more
> > complete, more userfriendly and RFC complient printing system.
> >
> > htt
Le Thu, Jul 31, 2003, à 09:44:17AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit:
> The last time I tried to use CUPS, I found it to be so user friendly
> that I couldn't get it to do anything useful. Very pretty, less
> functional; and the documentation was entirely inadequate.
Well, while what you describe
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 14:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> The last time I tried to use CUPS, I found it to be so user friendly
> that I couldn't get it to do anything useful. Very pretty, less
> functional; and the documentation was entirely inadequate.
>
> On the other hand, while lprng was anythi
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:38:55PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> I believe it would be a good idea if the default print system in the
> next release of Debian (Sarge) is changed to CUPS. CUPS is a more
> complete, more userfriendly and RFC complient printing system.
>
> http://www.cups
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:04:10PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> > By the way: That lpadmin does not work seems to be a bug but a feature -
> > at least I had the same result as you. :-((
> > The web frontend worked for me after some fiddling around (n
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:04:10PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> By the way: That lpadmin does not work seems to be a bug but a feature -
> at least I had the same result as you. :-((
> The web frontend worked for me after some fiddling around (not after
> the plain install).
So this looks like
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:10:28AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Well, that's also a possible method for adding a printer. Do you get any
> error messages then on the console or in the logfiles beneath
> /var/log/cups?
Nothing except the one I posted here.
> Hm, do you need the cupsomatic-ppd b
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:27:49AM +0200, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> Oh that will work fine with CUPS. But i am not convinced that you want
> this. How to administer printers with System V commands is pretty much
> standard in the Unix world. dpkg-reconfigure is not.
Okay, accepted. My main problem
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 09:01:45PM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
> Ok. I'm sorry. I misunderstood, I read that too quickly - my mistake,
No problem.
> of course. Because I was rude in public so I want to apologize in
> public, too. I'm sorry.
I did not think your mail was being rude. No need to apolo
Michael Meskes writes:
> Or else you should read my original mail. :-)
> The problem is not RTFM since all works well with the default ppds, but a)
> the interaction with cupsomatic-ppd and b) the missing configuration in
> postints. WHere does this belong if not into -devel?
Ok. I'm sorry. I
On 01-09-03 Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > Probably because you're supposed to use a gooey web browser to add
> > a printer... a bit much for a postinst script.
> Not exactly. The way I read the docs you can use lpadmin from the
> comm
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I used to tell everyone we need no fancy GUI for configuration as our
> postinst scripts take care of all that. All you need to know is
> dpkg-reconfigure if you want to change anything.
>
> That probably won't work with cups.
I´m really sure that debcon
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 07:48:54PM +0300, Ari Makela wrote:
> No, it can be done by hand. With cups one really has to do one's
> RTFM. If one does, it'll work fine.
I used to tell everyone we need no fancy GUI for configuration as our
postinst scripts take care of all that. All you need to know is
Dimitri Maziuk writes:
> Probably because you're supposed to use a gooey web browser to add
> a printer... a bit much for a postinst script.
No, it can be done by hand. With cups one really has to do one's
RTFM. If one does, it'll work fine.
IMAO: development list shouldn't be a help desk. An
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> Probably because you're supposed to use a gooey web browser to add
> a printer... a bit much for a postinst script.
Not exactly. The way I read the docs you can use lpadmin from the
commandline to add a printer. In fact it works fo
>
> Yes, I know that. But it appears to be a problem with the cupsomatic-ppd
> printer file. Also I still wonder if there's a reason for not configuring a
> printer in the postinst as does the lpr/magicfilter combo.
Probably because you're supposed to use a gooey web browser to add
a printer... a
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 12:19:51PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Would you mind telling us which version of cups you have installed? You
> didn't include that information.
Sorry, I forgot that. It's the actual woody version:
ii cupsomatic-ppd 0.20010420-3 cups printer ppd's from LinuxPrinting
On 01-09-02 Michael Meskes wrote:
> I wanted to install DeskJet_670C-cdj670.ppd or DeskJet_670C-pcl3.ppd from
> cupsomatic-ppd but just got a
>
> lpadmin: add-printer failed: The requested resource was not found on this
> server.
Would you mind telling us which version of cups you have installed
63 matches
Mail list logo
