[arch-dev-public] restructure our printing system
after talking to Till Kampeter at Linuxtag in Berlin and reading around how other distributions are packaging the printer drivers i want to restructure our packages(cups, gutenprint, foomatic, gimp-print-lprng,cups-pdf....): - package only still developed software - stick with stable tree releases - drop outdated packages/move to AUR rarely - improve features the last point will force us to have almost all printing related packages in either current or extra. now they are splitted and can not depend on each other. i suggest to move such hardware related packages + virtual printers all into current/system or current/office. but extra would also be fine for me. where's the better location? AndyRTR
Could you be more specific?
- package only still developed software
Which software do we have that is not developed? Usually, I think dropping undeveloped software is only necessary if it requires work to stay compatible. If a certain piece of software just sits there, works, and never has to be recompiled, I say leave it there.
- stick with stable tree releases
Again, which packages are not from the stable release?
- drop outdated packages/move to AUR rarely
See above.
- improve features
the last point will force us to have almost all printing related packages in either current or extra. now they are splitted and can not depend on each other.
Again, what features? Examples please.
i suggest to move such hardware related packages + virtual printers all into current/system or current/office. but extra would also be fine for me.
Depends on how we define current. IMO extra would be just fine. Generally, I need printing and want it to work, so if any of the above points actually need improvement, I am giving it a +1 (but as I said, I need to understand your specific concerns first). Testing will be difficult, as I only have one laser printer (pxlmono driver, ppd is in foomatic somewhere) and access to one post script model. I guess nobody here has more than 2 or 3 printers.
Am Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:22:04 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
Could you be more specific?
IMO obsolete: - foomatic 2.0.3-2 - gimp-print-lprng 4.2.7-2 stable/unstable/unmaintaned: development in foomatic is only done in the stable 3.0 tree and no more in the 3.1 tree. x86_64 already has a fresh and reworked foomatic 3.0 release. i686 still has outdated 3.1 packages. see the pkg difflist. also foomatic-db-hpijs is missing in i686. i will try to restructure hplip to work with foomatic-db-hpijs. they share some drivers but there're additional in the foomatic one. gutenprint supports much more features when it can be compiled against foomatic packages. it could be splitted and also be localized. i think it would be more usefull to have gutenprint, foomatic and related packages in one repo and one category. maybe even ghostscript and x11-printing libraries. and we should try to update foomatic packages more often. Till recommended to do this every 14 days. at least on every cups bump it should be done. because the snapshots appear/disappear daily we should hold the sources in our public_html somewhere to have a common source and release date for both architectures. we should also follow the openprinting.org news where important changes are described in feeds. http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting AndyRTR
Andreas Radke schrieb:
IMO obsolete: - foomatic 2.0.3-2
That is related to the stuff we said below, right?
- gimp-print-lprng 4.2.7-2
gimp-print has been replaced by gutenprint. Why do we even keep lprng, and why do we need separate ghostscript/gutenprint packages for it?
stable/unstable/unmaintaned:
development in foomatic is only done in the stable 3.0 tree and no more in the 3.1 tree. x86_64 already has a fresh and reworked foomatic 3.0 release. i686 still has outdated 3.1 packages. see the pkg difflist. also foomatic-db-hpijs is missing in i686. i will try to restructure hplip to work with foomatic-db-hpijs. they share some drivers but there're additional in the foomatic one.
ACK.
gutenprint supports much more features when it can be compiled against foomatic packages. it could be splitted and also be localized.
I think we can do that.
i think it would be more usefull to have gutenprint, foomatic and related packages in one repo and one category. maybe even ghostscript and x11-printing libraries.
Agreed.
and we should try to update foomatic packages more often. Till recommended to do this every 14 days. at least on every cups bump it should be done. because the snapshots appear/disappear daily we should hold the sources in our public_html somewhere to have a common source and release date for both architectures.
Agreed, probably more often that on cups bumps.
we should also follow the openprinting.org news where important changes are described in feeds.
Me and you could subscribe to an RSS feed, if there is one :)
Am Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:29:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de>:
after talking to Till Kampeter at Linuxtag in Berlin and reading around how other distributions are packaging the printer drivers i want to restructure our packages(cups, gutenprint, foomatic, gimp-print-lprng,cups-pdf....):
As first steps i fixed the missing IJS support in ghostscript. See http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting/Database/Projects#Drivers for more. I moved gutenprint from current/system to extra/office and added IJS, foomatic and ghostscript support. Once we will move gimp to extra we can also move ghostscript to extra. Meanwhile we can update the foomatic stuff. For i686 there are still foomatic-db, foomatic-db-engine updates back to the stable tree pending where x86_64 is in front. And foomatic-db-hpijs is missing completely for a while on the i686 front. Who's going to build the i686 stuff? AndyRTR
participants (2)
-
Andreas Radke
-
Thomas Bächler