Re: Cite for print-to-postscript exploit in Mozilla?
This is one case where I'm glad that I am using the binary builds from
mozilla.org and not the .deb in Testing.
Perhaps it was just the way I read the BTS comments, but it seemed like
the PS security claim was more-or-less cover for the real reason PS was
cut out and XPrint put. Apparently, the PS printing was (is?) very
poor with international pages using other character sets (I read this
in comments on the Mozilla Bugzilla pages.
Now that I finally spent some time and installed CUPS, I am getting
printouts to be proud of on my old Lexmark printer. I'm glad that
wasn't broken by a shift in a package maintainer's policy. BTW, I am
not a Debian Developer, for something with as widespread impact as this
change seems to have caused, isn't there some sort of Debian Policy
(TM) that is supposed to be followed in a situation like this? After
all, this means that package maintainers can make abitrary decisions
regarding some rather important packages. I guess all decisions made by
the maintainers are abitrary, but this just seems to be a case of
ruling by fiat especially with the "won't fix" tagging of wishlist BTS
reports and closing them with no comment.
I realize that all package maintainers are short of time, but in this
case I think it would be wise for the maintainer to have a package with
PS enabled and another with XPrint enabled to satisfy the needs of both
sets of users. To do otherwise seems petty.
- Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org
Reply to: