Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:06:30 -0500 From: Brian T.Schellenberger <bts@babbleon.org> To: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net>, Joe Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: dwcjr@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD Ports List <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: CUPS support can be unconditional Message-ID: <0af954506040c12FE4@mail4.nc.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20020111191014.GA45037@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> References: <20020111182721.GA42417@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20020111134107.J80091-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20020111191014.GA45037@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 11 January 2002 02:10 pm, Alan Eldridge wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:42:33PM -0500, Joe Clarke wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Alan Eldridge wrote:
> >> I would recommend, upon some reflection, doing this the way we did in
> >> kdelibs. That is, cups-base is unconditional. If somebody really
> >> wants to use cups, they can't rely on another port to suck it in via
> >> dependency anyway; it doesn't work without being configured.
> >
> >I don't understand why your making CUPS mandatory for Samba. Some users
> >won't want it period. They'll want to stick with BSD printing (like for
> >use with apsfilter). This will cause unnecessary download and build time.
>
> So Cups users should instead be required to build from source rather
> than use packages?
>
> A user who installs both samba and cups from packages (for example,
> when installing a new system from CDROM) finds that it won't work?
>
> That is a rather gross violation of POLA.
Not as gross a violation of POLA as a user who has printing fully working and
then adds Samba and suddenly their NON-samba printing breaks. This is
exactly what happened to me to start this whole discussion.
It was not at all obvious to me that the samba install was related to the
printing-system failure; indeed I at first thought it was KDE, though as it
turns out KDE had already been fixed and I was mis-reading the port info.
Note that is is even *more* likely to confuse somebody who installs a package
than a port (since they are less likely to be able to hack around and figure
things out), so building with CUPS by default for the packages seems like a
particularly unfortunate proposal.
Maybe a Samba-CUPS port and samba port (for the sake of the packages)?
That's pretty ugly. Best is, I think to either:
1) Make samba not use CUPS by default merely because the library is present,
or
2) Fix CUPS that its out-of-the-box configuration simply routes everything
to the base system /usr/bin tools.
I like (2) best--it would allow the user to essentially be indifferent to
which system was being used as long as they don't actually configure CUPS,
and if they do configure CUPS, they presumably expect CUPS to do whatever
they configured it to do.
--
Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . bts@wnt.sas.com (work)
Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . bts@babbleon.org (personal)
http://www.babbleon.org
-------> Free Dmitry Sklyarov! (let him go home) <-----------
http://www.eff.org http://www.programming-freedom.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0af954506040c12FE4>