--- Begin Message ---
package: hplip
version: 1.6.10-2
severity: minor
Hello!
I've seen that hplip recommends both hpijs-ppds and
linuxprinting.org-ppds.
Why does it do so?
Doesn't it work with the phijs-ppds alone?
Does it work with other ppds at all?
The package description for linuxprinting.org-ppds says:
"If you have non-PostScript printers, the foomatic-filters-ppds and
hplip-ppds packages are the ones you need; this package won't be of much
help to you."
Unfortunately, this sound rather useless to me. Consider that this
package takes 18.4MB when it gets installed automatically by e.g.
aptitude (which installs 'recommends' additional to 'depends' by
default).
Thank you for your effort!
Greetings,
Fabian
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb:
True. OTOH, in face of the whole hoopla about "plug and play" printer setup,
I don't know if it makes sense to mess with it. Since it is just a
recommendation, you are already free to refuse to install either one, in
fact, you can refuse to install both if you don't need PPDs at all (for some
very weird reason).
I have to admit, I am not an expert on this. It's only a very minor
issue anyway (please note that my initial bugreport was formulated as a
question). I don't want to enforce a certain packaging practice with
this bug report, I just wanted to express my surprise and make sure that
both packages are recommended intentionally.
That said, I agree that technically recommending one OR the other is good
enough, it satisfies what is required to run the package (and thus the
reason for a recommends instead of a suggests), and I am not heavily against
it.
If there's a chance to break printer detection automagic in certain
installations, this bug should rather be closed without further action.
Sorry for the noise!
Cheers,
Fabian
--- End Message ---