Bug#852844: marked as done (lpadmin "-E" parameter does not respect POSIX conventions)

[owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)]

Your message dated Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:33:29 +0200
with message-id <3371416.8AQE2gfAIJ@odyx.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#852844: lpadmin "-E" parameter does not respect POSIX conventions
has caused the Debian Bug report #852844,
regarding lpadmin "-E" parameter does not respect POSIX conventions
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
852844: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=852844
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

--- Begin Message ---

• To: submit@bugs.debian.org
• Subject: lpadmin "-E" parameter does not respect POSIX conventions
• From: Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollito@riseup.net>
• Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:00:43 -0500
• Message-id: <aadf0992-4d5e-a359-9ddc-9ce756d8734f@riseup.net>

Package: cups-client

Hi!

The behavior of the "-E" parameter in lpadmin is not consistent:

$ lpadmin -E -p Printer_name == Encrypt

whereas:

$ lpadmin -p Printer_name -E == Enable printer

Having the same parameter change completely depending on the order it is
called is not POSIX compliant:

*Guideline 11*: The order of different options relative to one another
should not matter, [...] [1]

[1]
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html#tag_12_02

Thanks!

-- 
pollo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollito@riseup.net>, 852844-done@bugs.debian.org
• Subject: Re: Bug#852844: lpadmin "-E" parameter does not respect POSIX conventions
• From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>
• Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:33:29 +0200
• Message-id: <3371416.8AQE2gfAIJ@odyx.org>
• In-reply-to: <[🔎] 55fd25e5-9a70-962f-68da-36538590176b@riseup.net>
• References: <aadf0992-4d5e-a359-9ddc-9ce756d8734f@riseup.net> <[🔎] 55fd25e5-9a70-962f-68da-36538590176b@riseup.net>

Le dimanche, 20 août 2017, 22.28:36 h CEST Louis-Philippe Véronneau a écrit :
> Bleh, as much as this displeases me, I don't think asking the CUPS
> upstream to change the behavior of that command after 11 years will work.

Yep. That sucks, but it's also history.

> Thanks for the digging. As far as I'm concerned, you can close this bug
> report.

Thank you for coming back to us! Hereby closing.

Cheers,
    OdyX

--- End Message ---