Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:27:32 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > >> So it is IMHO safe to allow on the Debian side too. What do you think ? >> > Ignoring the upstream changes for a moment, I'm uncomfortable with the > packaging overhaul.
What does make you so uncomfortable ? A big part of the debian/ diff is the changelog merge; the debian/control file sees some minor updates; the debian/rules sees a rewrite towards dh7 (which is way simpler now, but keeps the weirdies of Lenny's); the various maintainer scripts see minor updates too. All in all, it seems me safe and sound (taking apart the dpkg-vendor thing below). > Also you're using dpkg-vendor in postinst, which IMO is not appropriate > (dpkg-vendor is in dpkg-dev, and the vendor is known at package build time > anyway, so you shouldn't need it there). Nice catch. I must confess I hadn't thought for a second that dpkg-vendor wouldn't be necessarily available on user machines. As I forked from the master packaging tree anyway, getting rid of this for an eventual squeeze version is not a problem. I'll rework this on the master tree for squeeze+1 for sure. > Lots of buffers with a static size in this code btw, it makes baby Jesus > cry. At the very least people should learn sizeof or #define instead of > having to remember all the places they need to change the size of the > buffers. > > Things like pdf_count_pages make me think shell code injection, but I > don't know what privileges it's running with or if it controls the file > name. You had answers from upstream on those ones, it's not something I really have control on. > Not knowing anything about cups or this package, can you quickly explain > why cups page accounting is something we want in squeeze? Quoting upstream again: > the ps_accounting is to get the true number of pages into > /var/log/cups/page_log and to make quotas working (you can set page quotas > for users in CUPS). It is not required to have printing work correctly but > here and there users are complaining that multiple-page jobs are > considered one-page in page_log. The experience of Ubuntu shows that it > does not break anything. The bugs of the switchover to Foomatic 4.0.x are > fixed. So you can activate it by default without problem. So my opinion is that its something good to have in Squeeze, but I can understand that it might be felt too risky. So three solutions IMHO: i) keep foomatic-filters in "lenny-style", with Chris as maintainer (basically foomatic-* MIA), no update towards Squeeze; ii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed but with ps_accounting default enabled; iii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed but _without_ the ps_accounting default change; What do you think ? Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
