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

Re: Bug#311344: Replacing lpr-ppd with lprng removes printer database

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:20:09PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> maybe this problem may be mentioned in the Sarge release notes ?

Please contact debian-doc@lists.debian.org about adding it to the release
notes if you think it should be mentioned.

IMHO, it seems like a minor issue; I don't think the release notes should be
a substitute for documentation that explains the Debian packaging system to
users, and too much detail in the release notes just reduces the number of
users who will read it.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:46:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:15:37PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> ....
> > > any suggestions?
> > 
> > I don't see any reason to worry about it; I think it was a bug for lpr-ppd
> > to ship /etc/printcap as a conffile, but it's a historical bug that I don't
> > think we should be trying to fix now.  The simple answer is "well, don't
> > purge packages without looking at the conffile list!".
> > 
> > It would definitely be wrong for lprng to declare /etc/printcap as a
> > conffile; there are many packages that use /etc/printcap, with no common
> > package they can depend on which could own this conffile, and /etc/printcap
> > also doesn't fit policy's description of what a conffile should be.  (If
> > you're installing a printer daemon, you almost certainly want to print,
> > which means customizing the printcap...)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -- 
> > Steve Langasek
> > postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: