Re: Freeze exception: foomatic-filters 4.0.5
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:27:32 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
>> So it is IMHO safe to allow on the Debian side too. What do you think ?
>>
> Ignoring the upstream changes for a moment, I'm uncomfortable with the
> packaging overhaul.
What does make you so uncomfortable ?
A big part of the debian/ diff is the changelog merge; the debian/control
file sees some minor updates; the debian/rules sees a rewrite towards dh7
(which is way simpler now, but keeps the weirdies of Lenny's); the various
maintainer scripts see minor updates too. All in all, it seems me safe and
sound (taking apart the dpkg-vendor thing below).
> Also you're using dpkg-vendor in postinst, which IMO is not appropriate
> (dpkg-vendor is in dpkg-dev, and the vendor is known at package build time
> anyway, so you shouldn't need it there).
Nice catch. I must confess I hadn't thought for a second that dpkg-vendor
wouldn't be necessarily available on user machines. As I forked from the
master packaging tree anyway, getting rid of this for an eventual squeeze
version is not a problem.
I'll rework this on the master tree for squeeze+1 for sure.
> Lots of buffers with a static size in this code btw, it makes baby Jesus
> cry. At the very least people should learn sizeof or #define instead of
> having to remember all the places they need to change the size of the
> buffers.
>
> Things like pdf_count_pages make me think shell code injection, but I
> don't know what privileges it's running with or if it controls the file
> name.
You had answers from upstream on those ones, it's not something I really
have control on.
> Not knowing anything about cups or this package, can you quickly explain
> why cups page accounting is something we want in squeeze?
Quoting upstream again:
> the ps_accounting is to get the true number of pages into
> /var/log/cups/page_log and to make quotas working (you can set page quotas
> for users in CUPS). It is not required to have printing work correctly but
> here and there users are complaining that multiple-page jobs are
> considered one-page in page_log. The experience of Ubuntu shows that it
> does not break anything. The bugs of the switchover to Foomatic 4.0.x are
> fixed. So you can activate it by default without problem.
So my opinion is that its something good to have in Squeeze, but I can
understand that it might be felt too risky.
So three solutions IMHO:
i) keep foomatic-filters in "lenny-style", with Chris as maintainer
(basically foomatic-* MIA), no update towards Squeeze;
ii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed but
with ps_accounting default enabled;
iii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed but
_without_ the ps_accounting default change;
What do you think ?
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: