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

Re: CUPS - how to match autodetected printers to physical ones



On 2022-04-10 at 08:10, gene heskett wrote:

> On Sunday, 10 April 2022 07:17:42 EDT The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> On 2022-04-10 at 07:08, gene heskett wrote:

>>> And how do you accomplish that? Its automatically installed
>>> AFAIK. And once installed, apt will not remove it without
>>> destroying the install. rm or chmod -x seems to be the only way,
>>> and nothing complains.
>> 
>> What package(s), by exact name, are you referring to? That is,
>> which package(s) is it that produce this effect when you try to
>> remove them?
>> 
>> On my computer, I have several libavahi* packages, which could not
>> be removed without removing large swaths of packages - but I also
>> have avahi-daemon and avahi-utils, which can be removed with few if
>> any side effects (as far as triggering removal of other packages
>> goes).
>> 
>> And since the subject at hand in this branch of the thread appears
>> to be avahi-daemon, surely removing that single package should be
>> enough to prevent avahi from doing anything undesirable?
> 
> Which IMO It should be but apt will not remove avahi-daemon on any of
> my buster machines  or on bullseye without taking "large swaths" of
> stuff with it.

Based on what Tomas said in his reply, I'm guessing that that's because
you've got GNOME or some similar fancy DE installed, and that DE's
packages declare a dependency on avahi-daemon directly.

I don't use such a DE (preferring, instead, a WM so niche that it's not
even packaged and in the repositories anymore), so it's no surprise that
I wouldn't see that effect - and also, if you do, no surprise that you
would.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: