Re: [OT] Sorry state of hplip (was: [SOLVED] Re: [jessie] recording line-in using ALSA?)
On Mon 31 Oct 2016 at 15:44:37 +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 05:11:34PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Other convenience scripts of similar nature get their own packages and
> > put into 'contrib'.
>
> The ones you have mentioned already (b43-fwcutter, flashplugin-nonfree and
> ttf-mscorefonts-installer) do nothing useful without additional, non-free
> bits, which is why they are in contrib. E.g. flashplugin-nonfree is useless
> without the non-free flash bits it downloads. It sounds like hp-plugin in
> isolation is similar, and would fit the bill for contrib; however, if a
> hypothetical separate hp-plugin package would depend on the hplip package
> which it is carried in now, then it's reasonably pragmatic for the hplip
> package to just carry the script, since the majority of functionality
> offered by the hplip package still does not require the non-free bits.
This is the crux of the matter. The *sole* reason for the existence of
43-fwcutter, flashplugin-nonfree and ttf-mscorefonts-installer is to
download non-free blobs/software. That is why they are in contrib.
HPLIP does not exist for the *sole* purpose of downloading non-free
items. hp-plugin is a convenience script for users. We would be doing
them and Debian a great disservice by removing it from the package.
In case you think we have not been here before there is #449497. In that
case the Release Team and the Technical Committee came down on the side
of the maintainer. Anyone who wants to chance their arm with this today
has precedent to overcome.
> On the other hand, if that script is the sole reason for the Python
> dependencies, then it would be a service to other users to split out that
> script for that reason. The place to start would be checking for, and if
> necessary filing, a wishlist bug.
The script is not the sole reason for the Python dependencies.
> There is a cost involved in having lots of small packages, that we all pay in
> terms of the size of the distribution Packages list, and the additional
> complexity of managing the source packages for developers and the bugs that
> would result.
That is another good reason. hp-plugin is free. HPLIP is free; no
non-free stuff is included in it. What a users do is up to them.
--
Brian.
Reply to: