Re: Splitting foo2zjs
OdyX, a small correction needs to be done:
You package splitting has replaced
/usr/lib/cups/driver/foo2zjs
by
/usr/lib/cups/driver/foo2zjs-common
leading to "lpinfo -m" listing the foo2zjs PPDs with
"foo2zjs-common:..." instead of "foo2zjs: ...". This makes the PPD
updater not matching the entries any more.
So you either need to rename the PPD generator back to
/usr/lib/cups/driver/foo2zjs
or change the file
debian/printer-driver-foo2zjs.ppd-updater
from
DRIVER_REGEXP='^foo2zjs:'
GENNICKNAME_REGEXP='s/-z\d\b//'
to
DRIVER_REGEXP='^foo2zjs-common:'
GENNICKNAME_REGEXP='s/-z\d\b//'
Otherwise PPDs of existing queues using this driver will not get
auto-updated.
Till
On 01/08/2014 01:33 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Till,
>
> Thanks for rising this question.
>
> Le mercredi, 8 janvier 2014, 12.42:04 Till Kamppeter a écrit :
>> OdyX, you have split foo2zjs into printer-driver-foo2zjs and
>> printer-driver-foo2zjs-common telling that you want all
>> arch-independent files being shared across architectures. This saves
>> some disk space in the build server infrastructure (there should be
>> plenty of disk space)
>
> This was triggered by the arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share lintian
> informational tag:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share.html
>
> Where it saves the most is on the mirrors, especially on Debian, as we
> currently have 13 architectures. The saving (although not huge) is of
> ~400 kB per package, for a new package of ~520 kB, altogether a ~4.6Mb
> saving.
>
> I agree it's not immense, but it's a small move in the direction of
> containing the continuous archive grow.
>
> (Also, it's probably worth mentioning that this change went through the
> NEW queue, so the FTP-Masters had to acknowledge that change…)
>
>> and on the user side it is probably without any benefit as nowadays no
>> one shares a system disk partition between several computers (which
>> can be of different architectures).
>
> Well, it's without downsides either as far as I can tell, no? The update
> should be fully transparent for all users, no?
>
>> So for me it looks like that it makes building and updating more
>> complicated without real benefit. Or what are the real advantages?
>
> Well, I can agree that src:foo2zjs became a little more complicated to
> maintain, but it's really not a burden, as far as I'm concerned… (Fixing
> the manpages or the build-system were way more cumbersome to do fwiw.)
>
> That said, if you have serious reasons to revert that, I'd happily hear
> them…
>
> Cheers,
>
> OdyX
>
Reply to: