[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-cups-devel] Bug#681851: escputil: requires module usblp which is blacklisted by CUPS



Hi Martin,

thanks for your feedback,

Le samedi, 21 juillet 2012 16.41:48, Martin Pitt a écrit :
> For the record -- there are no real Debian cups maintainers at the
> moment. Till is working on Ubuntu, and I haven't had an actual printer
> (nor real interest in it) for several years now. Unfortunately the RFA
> [1] has not gotten any action in three years :(

Yeah. I'm aware of that; sad situation. That said, the Printing Team's 
situation is not vastly better: Jonas maintains ghostprint, Roger maintains 
gutenprint (orphaned), I'm doing the rest and Till is our Ubuntu gateway guy. 
So I'm not sure there's much available manpower there either.

> It might actually be better to formally orphan the package in Debian
> to point this out more clearly. I'm still happy to sponsor Till's
> uploads into Debian, as I believe that so far this was better than
> letting it bitrot for several years.

Fully agreed; thanks for your continuous work! (Now that Wheezy is frozen, it 
also makes full sense to upload every Ubuntu package in experimental first.)

Now for Wheezy, I can't have a solid enough on the changes introduced after 
1.5.3-1. 1.5.3-2 didn't migrate because the mips build failed; I suspect this 
can be solved by a build on (currently down) ball.debian.org.

Till: are there atomic changes done since 1.5.3-1 that would be worth 
integrating into Wheezy? I'm willing to prepare a 1.5.3-2+wheezy0 that would 
revert 1.5.3-2 and add the smallest amount of changes towards wheezy if that 
helps giving Wheezy a better cups. (Keeping in mind that the Release Team will 
review the diff between 1.5.3-1 and whatever we want in wheezy.)

Finally, #640939 should probably be fixed in Wheezy and we should avoid 
letting #682426 enter Wheezy either.

Thanks for reading,

OdyX

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: