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

Re: a2ps and page size -- driving me nuts!



On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Marc Wilson <msw@cox.net> [2003.11.13.0439 +0100]:
> > Unstable's current a2ps is (a) broken wrt paper sizes, (b) is currently
> > without libpaper support.  You need to downgrade to the non-CVS-in-the-name
> > version, that being:
> 
> I am already running just 4.13b-16.

You're way behind.  4.13b-16 was the last upload by the previous
maintainer.  It was hijacked with the -17 upload.

a2ps (4.13b-16) unstable; urgency=low
-- Manfred Wassmann <manolo@NCC-1701.B.Shuttle.de>  Thu,  7 Mar 2002

Since then, there have been:

a2ps (4.13b-17) unstable; urgency=low
-- Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@debian.org>  Sat, 22 Mar 2003

a2ps (4.13b-18) unstable; urgency=low
-- Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@debian.org>  Tue,  1 Apr 2003

a2ps (4.13b-19) unstable; urgency=low
-- Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@debian.org>  Sun,  6 Apr 2003

a2ps (4.13b-20) unstable; urgency=low
-- Masayuki Hatta <mhatta@debian.org>  Tue, 29 Apr 2003

then what looks like an unacknowledged NMU:

a2ps (4.13b-20.1) unstable; urgency=low
-- Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>  Sat, 23 Aug 2003

And that's when I stopped keeping track, as that CVS version that got
uploaded to unstable is seriously broken and I wasn't interested in
figuring out how.  I needed a2ps to work NOW, not next month, and I wasn't
about to take the time to figure out what was wrong with its defined paper
sizes.

OTOH, that broken package has now migrated to Sarge, and Sarge shouldn't
release with it in there.

> > Well, not -20.2, as I built that locally to avoid #202673.  The prior
> > version is actually -20.1...
> > It's all in the BTS.
> 
> I looked, really. You mean #190593?

No, I mean #202673, which is why I said it.  I have lots of files here that
have either spaces or hyphens in their names, and a2ps does NOTHING to
escape those to ensure that the generated command line for file(1) doesn't
do something odd.  The CVS version currently in unstable rewrites the code
that generates that command line, but it now has other problems.

I never had any issues with odd sized pages until I started trying to use
that CVS version.  Of course, I own real PostScript printers... maybe that
has something to do with it.

> One thing to note is that a PS file generated from a2ps looks
> alright... I am thus a little confused as to where the source of the
> problem lies...

There's nothing wrong with the files other than that the margins are too
big.  I have no idea where the paper size settings came from, nor did I
care.  Personally, I think if the maintainer wanted to experiment, such an
obviously broken package should have been uploaded to experimental, not
unstable.

And most especially, not left to languish as it has been.

-- 
 Marc Wilson |     Diplomacy is the art of letting the other party have
 msw@cox.net |     things your way.  -- Daniele Vare

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: