Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:22:21 -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: <094603122040c12FE5@mail5.nc.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <0af954506040c12FE4@mail4.nc.rr.com> References: <20020111182721.GA42417@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20020111191014.GA45037@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <0af954506040c12FE4@mail4.nc.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kindly ignore this message. I didn't read the thread to its conclusion
before jumping in again.
On Friday 11 January 2002 11:06 pm, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
> 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?094603122040c12FE5>