[Pkg-cups-devel] Bug#427559: Bug#427559: cupsd "run as user" changes in 1.2.11-2 breaks existing installations (no printing)

[Martin-Éric Racine]

On 6/5/07, Kurt Pfeifle <kurt.pfeifle at infotec.com> wrote:
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On 6/5/07, Kurt Pfeifle <kurt.pfeifle at infotec.com> wrote:
> >> Package: cupsys
> >> Version: 1.2.11-2
> >>
> >> I'm reporting on behalf of
> >> a customer who called me today because important functions on his test
> >> printserver [running on Sid] broke after upgrading to CUPS 1.2.11-2;
> >
> >> He can not use that system any more for now, until he pays money to some-
> >> one to fix everything (if that is at all possible; otherwise to migrate
> >> it to a non-Debian distro).
> >

> > that I have serious issues with your report on one specific
> > aspect:
> >
> > Your customer is running Testing on a production server that he needs
> > to depend upon for everyday work.
>
> No, you didn't read (or exactly memorize) what I wrote. I said it was his
> *test* print server. Please check.

You said test server and yet you report on how this latest upgrade
alarmingly broke everything he is running on that.  That makes it
pretty clear that he depends upon that server for everyday life.


>  * it is totally legal and valid to report bugs and submit wishlist items
>    against a Sid/unstable system irrespective of the fact whether these
>    were acquired on a "production" system

That "you guys broke our system and it's gonna cost us a fortune to
get it fixed" moaning won't help their case, at any rate. It also
proves that they actually rely upon that server for everyday use.

>  * some people run "Testing" and "Unstable" *now* on their test and
>    "pilot" systems because they have a long term plan to migrate hundreds
>    of servers and 10s of thousands of workstations to Linux, away from a
>    proprietary system (and by the time of the migration they hope to use
>    a "Stable" or "Testing" version)

In which case it's just a test server, not a system running a number
of  scripts and filters they noticably depend upon.

> I didn't see you participate in any of the detailed discussions that
> took place on the upstream mailing lists about that particular topic;
> not once on many occasions over the last 2-3 years when they happened;
> therefore I do not deem you competent in uttering a verdict about
> upstream having a "patently broken security model".

I have been following the issue for longer than that, but whatever.
It has become clear to me that you only came here to bicker and to
push these maintainers into reverting every change that disagrees with
how you would maintain this package.

However, I have an even better proposal for you: become the CUPS
maintainer in Debian, yourself, right now.

Start by triaging the bugs currently open against the package.

Then submit patches that show what changes you would like to see in
CUPS for Debian (and keep in mind our stated goal to keep differences
between the Debian and Ubuntu packages minimal).

If you do a good job at it, we'll gladly let Your Expertness take over
the package's maintenance and, yes we mean it. :)

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi