Bug#682963: lsb-printing: should depend on cups or relax to only recommend ghostscript-cups

["Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" <odyx@debian.org>]

tags 682963 +moreinfo
thanks

Le vendredi, 27 juillet 2012 14.13:33, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Package: lsb-printing
> Version: 4.1+Debian7
> Severity: normal
> 
> ghostscript-cups is only generally usable together with cups.
> 
> If intent of lsb-printing is to _ensure_ that related packages are
> installed, then also depend on cups (and possibly colord as well),
> because ghostscript-cups only recommends it.

The intent of lsb-printing is to ensure that the mandated LSB interfaces are 
present. The "Linux Standard Base Printing Specification 4.1" [0] requires 
libcups, libcupsimage and the foomatic-rip and ghostscript executables.

[0] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Printing/LSB-
Printing/book1.html

(I shall also note that Recommends are supposed to be pulled in "in all but 
unusual intallations", so a normal installation of lsb-printing will pull 
cups.)

> If intent of lsb-printing is only to _encourage_ that cups is installed
> then it makes better sense to only recommend ghostscript-cups, because
> it really only makes sense to install together with cups.

The addition of ghostscript-cups has been triggered by the Launchpad bug 
#385606, in particular in comment #6 by Till Kamppeter.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/385606/comments/6

	To completely fix this bug (…) the lsb package (because the LSB requires
	that the CUPS Raster driver interface is present) must have a "Depends:
	ghostscript-cups".

On my side, as LSB maintainer, I'm not particularly inclined to change this: 
lsb-printing is not made to be a useful meta-package per se; its purpose is to 
provide required program-level interfaces and I see no bug in that regard.

Till, Jonas: opinions ?

Cheers,

OdyX