[gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Graham Murray]

Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
-r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

Am 05.09.2011 23:00, schrieb Graham Murray:
> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.

The testing ~arch is the place where the active ebuild development and
bugfixing takes place so such a thing is not unusual there. One of the
risks of ~arch.

Greetings

Sebastian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alex Schuster]

Graham Murray wonders:

> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.

Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
the cups USE flag has been removed. I would have preferred if the ebuild
got a -r2 so I could simply mask it, as compiling it again would not
change a thing when the cups USE flag was enabled already.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:34:22 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:

> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
> the cups USE flag has been removed. I would have preferred if the ebuild
> got a -r2 so I could simply mask it, as compiling it again would not
> change a thing when the cups USE flag was enabled already.

Policy is to not bump the revision if the code it installs is the same.
It could be considered a bug in portage that this change results in a
rebuild with --changed-use.

You can stop it happening by removing cups from
/var/db/pkg/app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1/USE, which fools portage
into thinking it was installed without the flag.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
  - Mark Twain

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alex Schuster]

Neil Bothwick writes:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:34:22 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> 
> > Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
> > the cups USE flag has been removed. I would have preferred if the
> > ebuild got a -r2 so I could simply mask it, as compiling it again
> > would not change a thing when the cups USE flag was enabled already.
> 
> Policy is to not bump the revision if the code it installs is the same.

Hmm, that's right, too.

> It could be considered a bug in portage that this change results in a
> rebuild with --changed-use.
> 
> You can stop it happening by removing cups from
> /var/db/pkg/app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1/USE, which fools portage
> into thinking it was installed without the flag.

Neat! Thanks, I didn't think about that. Works fine, emerge -Dautv
--changed-use @world no longer picks up libreoffice.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Alex.

On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:34:22PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Graham Murray wonders:

> > Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
> > is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
> > rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
> > then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
> > -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.

> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
> the cups USE flag has been removed.

What???  I run lprng on my machine, not cups.  Does that mean that
libreoffice will be broken the next time I update?  Please tell me I've
misunderstood what you've just said.

Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance, its
wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely I'm
not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or using
cups?

> I would have preferred if the ebuild got a -r2 so I could simply mask
> it, as compiling it again would not change a thing when the cups USE
> flag was enabled already.

> 	Wonko

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Brennan Shacklett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1516 bytes --]

On
Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> Hi, Alex.
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:34:22PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Graham Murray wonders:
>
> > > Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
> > > is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
> > > rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
> > > then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
> > > -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>
> > Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
> > the cups USE flag has been removed.
>
> What???  I run lprng on my machine, not cups.  Does that mean that
> libreoffice will be broken the next time I update?  Please tell me I've
> misunderstood what you've just said.
>
> Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance, its
> wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely I'm
> not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or using
> cups?
>
> > I would have preferred if the ebuild got a -r2 so I could simply mask
> > it, as compiling it again would not change a thing when the cups USE
> > flag was enabled already.
>
> >       Wonko
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
>
> I'm afraid that cups is now a mandatory dependency for libreoffice, just
check in the ebuild.
libreoffice will still work without cups running though, you just can't
print... :(

--Brennan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2021 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster <wonko@wonkology.org> wrote:
> Graham Murray wonders:
>
>> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
>> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
>> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
>> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
>> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>
> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,

What??

So if I don't have a printer, and have no intention of printing
anything from this system, libreoffice requires that I install Cups?

Sounds like it's time to switch back to OOo.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alex Schuster]

Alan Mackenzie writes:

> Hi, Alex.

> > Graham Murray wonders:
> 
> > > Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems?
> > > Today is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD
> > > world has rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use
> > > flag change, then the next day a new version was put in the tree,
> > > then there was an -r1 release and today there is yet another use
> > > flag change.
> 
> > Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now, so
> > the cups USE flag has been removed.
> 
> What???  I run lprng on my machine, not cups.  Does that mean that
> libreoffice will be broken the next time I update?  Please tell me I've
> misunderstood what you've just said.

I don't know much about this, I just did a
diff /var/db/pkg/app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1.ebuild /usr/portage/app-office/libreoffice/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1.ebuild.
The IUSE line no longer has cups, the dependency of net-print/cups is
mandatory, and --enable-cups is always given as configure option. Yes, 
this means you will need cups. I don't know if you somehow could
still print when it is not configured.

> Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance,
> its wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely
> I'm not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or
> using cups?

Printing is one thing that just seems to work much better on Windows. This
is becoming better, it looks like the LibreOffice and Firefox print
dialogs allow to set print features like the resolution. But other
applications, like Konqueror, do not have this option, so I have multiple
printers configured in order to select the resolution. BTW, how is
your situation with lprng now, can you change the resolution in Firefox'
print dialog?

I never liked CUPS, but then, at least there is some interface
to configure its options. I don't do much printing anyway, so I can live
with that. Well, seems I have to.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:12:08 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:

> Printing is one thing that just seems to work much better on Windows.
> This is becoming better, it looks like the LibreOffice and Firefox print
> dialogs allow to set print features like the resolution. But other
> applications, like Konqueror, do not have this option, so I have
> multiple printers configured in order to select the resolution.

You can do it, but the option is fairly well hidden. In the print window,
select Properties, then the Advanced tab. Double-click the resolution and
it turns into a drop-down menu.

I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house, who
put light switches inside cupboards.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:07:34 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:12:08 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> 
> > Printing is one thing that just seems to work much better on
> > Windows. This is becoming better, it looks like the LibreOffice and
> > Firefox print dialogs allow to set print features like the
> > resolution. But other applications, like Konqueror, do not have
> > this option, so I have multiple printers configured in order to
> > select the resolution.
> 
> You can do it, but the option is fairly well hidden. In the print
> window, select Properties, then the Advanced tab. Double-click the
> resolution and it turns into a drop-down menu.
> 
> I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house,
> who put light switches inside cupboards.

You're lucky, I got a booze cupboard build in front of the main
distribution box. I recall a time not so long ago when the kde print
configure dialog was masked due to being 'broken by design'. Is it
still that way?





-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:07:08 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house,
> > who put light switches inside cupboards.  
> 
> You're lucky, I got a booze cupboard build in front of the main
> distribution box.

What I failed to mention was that the cupboard was often in a different
room. The switch for the living room wall lights is still in the kitchen
cupboard, behind the pickled onions :-O

> I recall a time not so long ago when the kde print
> configure dialog was masked due to being 'broken by design'. Is it
> still that way?

I guess not, as you can now change the settings. It seems have been
upgraded from "masked" to "concealed".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

NOTE: In order to control energy costs the light at the end
of the tunnel has been shut off until further notice...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Stroller]

On 6 September 2011, at 10:12, Alex Schuster wrote:
> ...
>> Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance,
>> its wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely
>> I'm not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or
>> using cups?
> 
> ...
> I never liked CUPS, but then, at least there is some interface
> to configure its options. I don't do much printing anyway, so I can live
> with that. Well, seems I have to.

There's something about the *idea* of CUPS that I think I disliked at one time.

Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
It has it's own web-interface, which one doesn't seem able to disable - why can't I just configure text files?

When I actually installed CUPS, it worked perfectly almost straight out of the box. Probably less effort and more reliable than printing on any other o/s I've used.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 6 September 2011, at 10:12, Alex Schuster wrote:
>> ...
>>> Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance,
>>> its wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely
>>> I'm not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or
>>> using cups?
>>
>> ...
>> I never liked CUPS, but then, at least there is some interface
>> to configure its options. I don't do much printing anyway, so I can live
>> with that. Well, seems I have to.
>
> There's something about the *idea* of CUPS that I think I disliked at one time.
>
> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
> It has it's own web-interface, which one doesn't seem able to disable - why can't I just configure text files?

The web interface is on port 631, the port for the Internet Printing
Protocol--which operates using HTTP (or something sufficiently like it
that you can tell Windows to find a printer at
http://yourhostname:631/printer_queue_name) as a baseline. That's why
it has a 'web' interface--the IPP folks looked at HTTP, saw that it
did much of what they needed, and built on top of it.

For giggles...read the HTTP RFC and compare request types like 'PUT'
vs 'POST'. HTTP is a *monster* of a protocol.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster<wonko@wonkology.org>  wrote:
>> Graham Murray wonders:
>>
>>> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
>>> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
>>> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
>>> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
>>> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,
> What??
>
> So if I don't have a printer, and have no intention of printing
> anything from this system, libreoffice requires that I install Cups?
>
> Sounds like it's time to switch back to OOo.
>

OOo is no longer in the tree so you'll have to do it the manual way.   I 
like how that was done tho.  Now you're stuck with this new thing that 
requires something some don't want. < sighs >  Oh, there is the binary 
one tho.  I wonder if it has cups turned on too?  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Alex.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:12:08AM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:

> > > Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,
> > > so the cups USE flag has been removed.

> > What???  I run lprng on my machine, not cups.  Does that mean that
> > libreoffice will be broken the next time I update?  Please tell me
> > I've misunderstood what you've just said.

> I don't know much about this, I just did a
> diff /var/db/pkg/app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1.ebuild /usr/portage/app-office/libreoffice/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1.ebuild.
> The IUSE line no longer has cups, the dependency of net-print/cups is
> mandatory, and --enable-cups is always given as configure option. Yes,
> this means you will need cups. I don't know if you somehow could still
> print when it is not configured.

I've had a google about this thing.  gentoo-user seems about the only
place this issue is discussed.  Is this imposition of cups being done by
LibreOffice or by our own Gentoo Projektbetreuer?

BTW, does anybody know a good office suite that runs on standard
GNU/LINUX infrastructural assumptions?

> 	Wonko

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:

> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
> It has it's own web-interface, which one doesn't seem able to disable -
> why can't I just configure text files?

You can, or at least you could the last time I tried it. The web
interface only does anything if you load it into a browser.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel...
but it was just some sod with a torch bringing me more work!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster <wonko@wonkology.org> wrote:
>> Graham Murray wonders:
>>
>>> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
>>> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
>>> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
>>> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
>>> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>>
>> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,
>
> What??
>
> So if I don't have a printer, and have no intention of printing
> anything from this system, libreoffice requires that I install Cups?

In my puny laptop, CUPS takes 1 min to compile, the source code is 4.4
Mb and the installed binaries are 9.3 Mb. It seems to be updated at
the rate of once a month, roughly.

I have never configured CUPS, *ever*, and it always just works when I
connect to a new network. The printers just appear in the print
dialog, and it always works. It always remembers my last selected
options.

To me it seems a rather sane default to always require the most used
printing system in an office suite.

> Sounds like it's time to switch back to OOo.

It would not surprise me that they will switch to mandatory CUPS in
the future. It just happened before in LO because they develop new
features faster, I believe.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 6 September 2011, at 10:12, Alex Schuster wrote:
>> ...
>>> Just to make things clear, I utterly detest cups, with its arrogance,
>>> its wierd, non-standard, and its non-text-based configuration.  Surely
>>> I'm not going to be faced by the choice of abandoning libreoffice or
>>> using cups?
>>
>> ...
>> I never liked CUPS, but then, at least there is some interface
>> to configure its options. I don't do much printing anyway, so I can live
>> with that. Well, seems I have to.
>
> There's something about the *idea* of CUPS that I think I disliked at one time.
>
> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?

I don't remember it was ever like that. It has always be a small
daemon with XML configuration files.

> It has it's own web-interface, which one doesn't seem able to disable - why can't I just configure text files?

You can use the web interface (I have never needed it), but the
configuration files are XML files, if I remember correctly.

> When I actually installed CUPS, it worked perfectly almost straight out of the box. Probably less effort and more reliable than printing on any other o/s I've used.

That's also my experience.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
>
>> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?

It's definitely huge.  It does however seem to work pretty well.

>> It has it's own web-interface, which one doesn't seem able to disable
>> - why can't I just configure text files?
>
> You can, or at least you could the last time I tried it.

You can, and in some cases you must.  There are certain strings I
_have_ to put in the config files by hand because the webUI chokes on
them.

> The web interface only does anything if you load it into a browser.

And then it doesn't always do the right thing.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! My vaseline is
                                  at               RUNNING...
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Grant Edwards
> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster<wonko@wonkology.org>  wrote:
>>> Graham Murray wonders:
>>>
>>>> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
>>>> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
>>>> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
>>>> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
>>>> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>>> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,
>> What??
>>
>> So if I don't have a printer, and have no intention of printing
>> anything from this system, libreoffice requires that I install Cups?
> In my puny laptop, CUPS takes 1 min to compile, the source code is 4.4
> Mb and the installed binaries are 9.3 Mb. It seems to be updated at
> the rate of once a month, roughly.
>
> I have never configured CUPS, *ever*, and it always just works when I
> connect to a new network. The printers just appear in the print
> dialog, and it always works. It always remembers my last selected
> options.
>
> To me it seems a rather sane default to always require the most used
> printing system in an office suite.
>

This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I 
had to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print 
until I did so.  That wasn't long ago either.  I haven't had to do that 
the last few upgrades but for over a year, that was required.  It used 
to get on my nerves.  Restarting the service I can understand.  It needs 
to reload its new config and all but not deleting and adding them again.

Maybe you and I should add, YMMV.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
>
> It's definitely huge.  It does however seem to work pretty well.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but how a daemon of 9.33 Mb it's now considered
bloated? It takes 54 Mb of memory (virtual size, so it includes shared
libraries), which is less than 5% in a 1 Gb RAM system (which is
little by today standards).

If you are planning on installing LibreOffice, I think the "bloat" of
CUPS is negligible. Specially if, as I said, it usually just works.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick<neil@digimed.co.uk>  wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
> It's definitely huge.  It does however seem to work pretty well.
>
>

Huge?

root@fireball / # equery s cups
  * net-print/cups-1.5.0-r2
          Total files : 482
          Total size  : 6.41 MiB
root@fireball / #


If that is considered huge, we have a new standard.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Grant Edwards
>> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-09-05, Alex Schuster<wonko@wonkology.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Graham Murray wonders:
>>>>
>>>>> Has the libreoffice ebuild suddenly developed stability problems? Today
>>>>> is the 4th time in five days that my daily ~x86 emerge uD world has
>>>>> rebuilt libreoffice. On 1st Sept it was because of a use flag change,
>>>>> then the next day a new version was put in the tree, then there was an
>>>>> -r1 release and today there is yet another use flag change.
>>>>
>>>> Same here on ~amd64. The last change is that cups is mandatory now,
>>>
>>> What??
>>>
>>> So if I don't have a printer, and have no intention of printing
>>> anything from this system, libreoffice requires that I install Cups?
>>
>> In my puny laptop, CUPS takes 1 min to compile, the source code is 4.4
>> Mb and the installed binaries are 9.3 Mb. It seems to be updated at
>> the rate of once a month, roughly.
>>
>> I have never configured CUPS, *ever*, and it always just works when I
>> connect to a new network. The printers just appear in the print
>> dialog, and it always works. It always remembers my last selected
>> options.
>>
>> To me it seems a rather sane default to always require the most used
>> printing system in an office suite.
>>
>
> This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
> to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
> did so.  That wasn't long ago either.  I haven't had to do that the last few
> upgrades but for over a year, that was required.  It used to get on my
> nerves.  Restarting the service I can understand.  It needs to reload its
> new config and all but not deleting and adding them again.
>
> Maybe you and I should add, YMMV.  ;-)

I think that goes without saying: every one can only speak about
personal experience.

But the thing is, CUPS is basically owned by Apple. And I'm pretty
sure the CUPS Gentoo installs is basically the same that Apple
installs in their machines (the patches Gentoo applies are few and
don't change the source that much).

I don't like Apple, and I don't own nor use any of their products. But
I have to admit they usually just works. And (in my experience, YMMV,
etc.), it's the same in my Gentoo boxen.

I'm in my last PhD "tour", and I have connected my laptop (and
printed) in like 4 or 5 different networks of universities literally
all over the world in the last few boxes. And I just Ctrl-P, select
printer, and click on "print".

From that point of view (mine), making CUPS mandatory for LibreOffice
(which this thread is all about) seems like the reasonable thing to
do.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
> to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
> did so.

I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...

I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
work with CUPS again.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:57:06AM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> In my puny laptop, CUPS takes 1 min to compile, the source code is 4.4
> Mb and the installed binaries are 9.3 Mb. It seems to be updated at
> the rate of once a month, roughly.

> I have never configured CUPS, *ever*, and it always just works when I
> connect to a new network. The printers just appear in the print
> dialog, and it always works. It always remembers my last selected
> options.

> To me it seems a rather sane default to always require the most used
> printing system in an office suite.

Is that right?  How about it being saner to conform to standardised
interfaces, protocols and formats?  At one time, Sendmail was the most
used mail server.  Does anybody still use it?  For that matter why
shouldn't we all be required to use the most used operating system?

Seems we have a case of "embrace and extend" working here.

No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented
by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a
fallback to standard `lpr'.  That way, everybody's happy.  Even me.  ;-)

Do you know a decent office suite which runs under G/L?  Looks like I'll
be needing one soon.

> Regards.
> -- 
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Paul Hartman
<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
>> to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
>> did so.
>
> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...
>
> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
> work with CUPS again.

Paul, I suspect you've got a udev configuration problem. Your printer
*should* get some kind of persistent symlink pointing to its device
node, probably derived from its serial number. If that isn't working
properly, fixing it should fix your recurring CUPS issues. If udev is
behaving properly, then perhaps CUPS is latching on to something more
transient.



-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Paul.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
> > to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
> > did so.

> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...

> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
> work with CUPS again.

I also print infrequently.  I turn my printer on, and it simply works,
straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer).

However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 11:28:16 schrieb Paul Hartman:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I
> > had to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print
> > until I did so.
> 
> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...

> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
> work with CUPS again.

Sounds familiar. I solved this by removing the usb-USE for cups.
Since then it works without any problems.
I own a HP-Printer, FWIW.

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[David W Noon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:01:10 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote about
[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?:

> On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
> 
> It's definitely huge.

Compared to LibreOffice??  ROFLMAO!
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwnoon@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Paul.
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
>> > to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
>> > did so.
>
>> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...
>
>> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
>> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
>> work with CUPS again.
>
> I also print infrequently.  I turn my printer on, and it simply works,
> straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer).
>
> However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
> what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(

It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and
other print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher. Is
there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng?

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Is that right?  How about it being saner to conform to standardised
> interfaces, protocols and formats?

How about IPP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol

Oh wait... that's what cups is using.

> No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented
> by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a
> fallback to standard `lpr'.  That way, everybody's happy.  Even me.  ;-)

How about the lpr command provided by cups?
Does it not work for you?

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Michael.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> > Is that right?  How about it being saner to conform to standardised
> > interfaces, protocols and formats?

> How about IPP?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol

> Oh wait... that's what cups is using.

Ah yes, a standard.  So we have the choice between all the IPP
implementations.  That's cups and, ... err - is there another one?

But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol?
I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable.  I want a simple
spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler.

> > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented
> > by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a
> > fallback to standard `lpr'.  That way, everybody's happy.  Even me.  ;-)

> How about the lpr command provided by cups?
> Does it not work for you?

I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed.
More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice?

> Michael

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Michael.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> > Hi, Paul.

> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
> >> > to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
> >> > did so.

> >> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...

> >> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
> >> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
> >> work with CUPS again.

> > I also print infrequently.  I turn my printer on, and it simply works,
> > straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer).

> > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
> > what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(

> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.

Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
a simple one.

> Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng?

Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in
a client program?  I doubt it.  It sounds like madness.

> -- 
> :wq

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Michael.
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>> > Is that right?  How about it being saner to conform to standardised
>> > interfaces, protocols and formats?
>
>> How about IPP?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol
>
>> Oh wait... that's what cups is using.
>
> Ah yes, a standard.  So we have the choice between all the IPP
> implementations.  That's cups and, ... err - is there another one?

The point is that it is a standard, not a proprietary protocol. The
proof is that it works on every operating system.

> But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol?
> I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable.  I want a simple
> spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler.

Nobody is forcing you to anything: but upstream projects (like
LibreOffice) need to fulfill the needs of all their users... not only
you. Don't force *them* to support every single printing system in the
planet earth; it's Open Source, if it's so important to you, write the
lpr support for LibreOffice.

>> > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented
>> > by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a
>> > fallback to standard `lpr'.  That way, everybody's happy.  Even me.  ;-)
>
>> How about the lpr command provided by cups?
>> Does it not work for you?
>
> I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed.
> More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice?

Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The
LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and
only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Michael.
>
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>> > Hi, Paul.
>
>> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
>> >> > to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
>> >> > did so.
>
>> >> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...
>
>> >> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
>> >> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
>> >> work with CUPS again.
>
>> > I also print infrequently.  I turn my printer on, and it simply works,
>> > straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer).
>
>> > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
>> > what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(
>
>> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
>> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.
>
> Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
> really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
> a simple one.

Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects
need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as
many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing
systems.

And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
besides the most used one.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Michael.
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
>> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.
>
> Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
> really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
> a simple one.

"IPP is just becoming" indicates a change. Where's change coming from?
Demand to satisfy new users. Who are the new users? Probably the
people running turnkey installs of Ubuntu.

For me, IPP and CUPS have "just worked" beautifully*. Any SKU of
Windows 7 higher than 'starter' will talk to a CUPS daemon just fine,
and will automatically see a CUPS daemon running on the network if the
daemon is using running mdns-sd. The one trouble I've had is getting
those mdns-sd broadcasts forwarded across my subnets.

Change happens.

>
>> Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng?
>
> Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in
> a client program?  I doubt it.  It sounds like madness.

Isn't that what inetd does? nc? Hell, isn't that what "does one thing,
and one thing only" KISS philosophy behind unixy commands and piping
philosophy has been about all along? Insert a shim or adapter between
two things which are related, but not quite compatible?


* And, yes, I realize that, for some, it doesn't. That's what mailing
lists like this are helpful for...troubleshooting.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 17:48:49 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Hi, Michael.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> > > Is that right?  How about it being saner to conform to standardised
> > > interfaces, protocols and formats?
> > 
> > How about IPP?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol
> > 
> > Oh wait... that's what cups is using.
> 
> Ah yes, a standard.  So we have the choice between all the IPP
> implementations.  That's cups and, ... err - is there another one?

Well, there's lprng-ipp. Not in portage though
http://jointlab.upol.cz/~michale/projects/lprng-ipp/

For other OSes there are other implementations available.

> But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol?
> I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable.  I want a simple
> spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler.
> 
> > > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly
> > > augmented by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always
> > > having a fallback to standard `lpr'.  That way, everybody's happy. 
> > > Even me.  ;-)> 
> > How about the lpr command provided by cups?
> > Does it not work for you?
> 
> I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed.
> More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice?

Because LibreOffice uses ipp for printing.

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 17:55:54 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Hi, Michael.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> > > Hi, Paul.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:28:16AM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups
> > >> > update, I had to delete my printers then add them back again.
> > >> >  It would not print until I did so.
> > >> 
> > >> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...
> > >> 
> > >> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the
> > >> printer
> > >> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to
> > >> make it
> > >> work with CUPS again.
> > > 
> > > I also print infrequently.  I turn my printer on, and it simply
> > > works,
> > > straight away (after warming up; it's a laser printer).
> > > 
> > > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice
> > > over
> > > what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(
> > 
> > It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
> > print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.
> 
> Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
> really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
> a simple one.

If it's no big deal, why don't you provide patches to LibreOffice?

> > Is there a simple IPP daemon which could wrap lprng?
> 
> Adding a layer of complexity to a daemon to cope with added complexity in
> a client program?  I doubt it.  It sounds like madness.

lprng-ipp seems to implement that madness.

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Canek.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> >> > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
> >> > what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(

> >> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
> >> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.

> > Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
> > really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
> > a simple one.

> Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects
> need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as
> many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing
> systems.

It enables more people to use it.

The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.  Given
that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing
being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to write
a C++ `if' statement?

> And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
> write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
> project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
> besides the most used one.

Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it.
I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and
it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue.

> Regards.
> -- 
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

Am 06.09.2011 20:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>
> Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it.
> I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and
> it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue.

Is this list really the right place to discuss this?

Would not the gentoo-dev list or gentoo bugzilla be better? Assumed that
it is gentoo who makes cups now mandatory and not upstream.
If it is gentoo then why not just patch the ebuilds in your local
overlay and be happy.

If it is upstream then all your complains would be better adressed
upstream. Maybe they have a bunch of really good reasons to do as they
did, reasons nobody HERE knows about.

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[pk]

On 2011-09-06 19:48, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed.
> More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice?

Hm... Can you not try to print to file (postscript, pdf) and then use
lpr (which will filter it through ghostscript) to print? Yes, it's an
extra step but going through the extra steps of finding a new "office
suite" that fits you and your needs may not be worth it. Besides, you
can always print extra copies, do fine tuning of the printing (like
printing duplex, two pages or more on the same page etc.) this way.

I do agree with you that CUPS is perhaps a bit convoluted, difficult to
understand (when it comes to configuration) etc. When "it" (CUPS)
"feels" like not playing, then there can be quite a few hours of
frustration and cursing before getting it to work... but it works for
me, currently;I have a very nice duplex laser printer from Kyocera with
Linux support out of the box which helps... :-)

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 18:57:25 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Hi, Canek.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> > >> > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a
> > >> > choice over what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(
> > >> 
> > >> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and
> > >> other print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.
> > > 
> > > Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.
> > >  It's really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface,
> > > particularly a simple one.
> > 
> > Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects
> > need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as
> > many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing
> > systems.
> 
> It enables more people to use it.

Yes. that's you and...?
All binary distros use cups for printing. I would think, most gentoo users do 
the same. The BSDs, I know of, use cups. MacOS uses it. It works for Windows-
Clients. There are IPP-Servers for Windows. What was your argument again?

> The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.  Given
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to write
> a C++ `if' statement?

I get it. You have no idea how software development at such a large scale 
works.

> > And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
> > write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
> > project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
> > besides the most used one.
> 
> Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it.

This code needs to be supported and maintained for literally no good reason. 
If you think, that's no work at all, just volunteer for the task.

> I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and
> it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue.

No, it's not, unless you are willing to do the additional work.

Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Canek.

Hi Alan.

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>
>> >> > However, I use lprng, not cups.  It's good that we have a choice over
>> >> > what software we use, isn't it?  ;-(
>
>> >> It could be that IPP is just becoming the preferred protocol, and other
>> >> print queue managing protocols are going the way of Gopher.
>
>> > Preferred by whom?  Firefox, for example, manages lprng just fine.  It's
>> > really not a big deal supporting an extra spooler interface, particularly
>> > a simple one.
>
>> Because, as "simple" as it could be, it's another one. Big projects
>> need to support CUPS, because they need to work for everyone (or as
>> many as possible). It makes no sense *at all* to support more printing
>> systems.
>
> It enables more people to use it.

I disagree. CUPS does everything that lprng does (AFAIK), so using
CUPS serves all users.

> The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.

Yeah, nobody wants to maintain that code (if it's LO decision), or
Gentoo devs don't want to help users of two different printing
systems, when one of them does everything everybody wants. Either way,
it's work that has to be done. Even if it's "small".

> Given
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to write
> a C++ `if' statement?

Point a, you are oversimplifying. Point b, again, code is not a fixed
entity that remains forever unchanged. The old adage of "if it's not
broke, don't fix it" it's completely false with code, because around
that code *everything* changes. All the time.

Just an example: C++ changes its syntax for something that affects the
lprng and CUPS methods inside LibreOffice (this happens a lot, BTW,
especially with C++). Now you need to fix the code in two places, not
in one. And that just to support a printing system, with a
functionality that is available *in the other* printing system.

THAT is insane.

>> And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
>> write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
>> project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
>> besides the most used one.
>
> Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying it.
> I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing system, and
> it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support to continue.

Sorry, but again I disagree. You became a user of an Open Source piece
of code. If it breaks, you get to keep the pieces, and that's about
it. Read the GPL license:

"... is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

So, sorry, but neither you (nor I) get to complain if lprng stops
being supported, nor if CUPS suddenly were to be dropped.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> Hi, Canek.
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.  Given
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to write
> a C++ `if' statement?

You don't actually code in large projects, do you? That single 'if'
statement is going to multiply your needed testing coverage area by a
very large amount. Even automated tests can be enough of a pain that
PHP just had a massive security problem by being sloppy and not
_running_ them prior to a point release.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Paul Hartman
> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is rather odd.  For the longest, every time I had a cups update, I had
>>> to delete my printers then add them back again.  It would not print until I
>>> did so.
>>
>> I have to do that every time I plug my printer in...
>>
>> I print so infrequently, every time I want to print I turn the printer
>> on and plug it into my PC, and then spend 25 minutes trying to make it
>> work with CUPS again.
>
> Paul, I suspect you've got a udev configuration problem. Your printer
> *should* get some kind of persistent symlink pointing to its device
> node, probably derived from its serial number. If that isn't working
> properly, fixing it should fix your recurring CUPS issues. If udev is
> behaving properly, then perhaps CUPS is latching on to something more
> transient.

IIRC the issue in my particular case is related to loading and
unloading the usblp module. I have an HP LaserJet 1020 and use
foo2zjs. Attaching the printer must be done in this order:

modprobe usblp
plug in printer
rmmod usblp

If I plug in then printer without usblp (if I have blacklisted the
module), it won't work. If I plug in the printer and leave usblp
loaded, it won't work. I must load usblp, plug in the printer and then
rmmod usblp. If I add the printer in CUPS when it's in the wrong
state, it won't work either.

Usually I screw around with deleting/adding the printer until I
remember what the solution was in the first place. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[James Broadhead]

On 6 September 2011 19:57, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.  Given
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the thing
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to write
> a C++ `if' statement?

We're all happily waiting for you to do it ... time yourself! :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, C.

Last mail before I take Sebastian's advice.  ;-)

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 03:20:59PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> Hi Alan.

> Point a, you are oversimplifying.

Indeed.  :-)

> THAT is insane.

I think I am, too.

> >> And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
> >> write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
> >> project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
> >> besides the most used one.

> > Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying
> > it.  I became a user based on it supporting a standard printing
> > system, and it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that support
> > to continue.

> Sorry, but again I disagree. You became a user of an Open Source piece
> of code. If it breaks, you get to keep the pieces, and that's about it.
> Read the GPL license:

> "... is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

Thankfully, there are many, many hackers who, despite the legal lack of
responsibility, actually do support their projects effectively.  As I
aspire to do with mine.  As I presume you do with yours too.

> Regards.
> -- 
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Thanks for these exchanges this evening.  I've learnt quite a bit.  So,
it's good night from me, good afternoon to you!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alex Schuster]

Neil Bothwick writes:

> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:12:08 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> 
> > Printing is one thing that just seems to work much better on Windows.
> > This is becoming better, it looks like the LibreOffice and Firefox
> > print dialogs allow to set print features like the resolution. But
> > other applications, like Konqueror, do not have this option, so I have
> > multiple printers configured in order to select the resolution.
> 
> You can do it, but the option is fairly well hidden. In the print
> window, select Properties, then the Advanced tab. Double-click the
> resolution and it turns into a drop-down menu.

Yikes. I wondered why I see these options, but they did not look like I
could modify them. I only had a quick look, I don't think I ever printed
something with Konqueror, so it never was a real problem for me.

> I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house, who
> put light switches inside cupboards.

Hmmm... weird, but I sort of like that. Gives your house a special touch.
How cool is this, a visitor asks you to turn on the light, and you say
'Sure!', open the cupboard, reach behind the onions and <click> there
will be light.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Albert W. Hopkins]

On Tuesday, September 6 at 18:57 (+0000), Alan Mackenzie said:

> The support for lpr exists.  It's being removed, for some reason.
> Given
> that printing works by constructing a postscript equivalent of the
> thing
> being printed, just how difficult can it be to squirt this postscript
> down lpr rather than the cups equivalent?  How long does it take to
> write
> a C++ `if' statement?

The latest lprng available in portage was released in 2004.  The latest
version of lprng released was released in 2010 but isn't even in
portage... There is a bump request, but it was created 2 years ago and
so far no takers (and no CC's).  My guess is that ratio of the the
demand for the packages vs. willing maintainers is close to nil and that
"lprng" is no longer considered "ng".

As far as the simple "if" statement.  If it were that simple you could
just do it yourself ;-)
> 
> > And again, it's Open Source. If there is enough demand, someone will
> > write support for other printing systems. Just don't assume that any
> > project (being LibreOffice or Gentoo) need to support your choices
> > besides the most used one.
> 
> Again the code already exists, it's merely a matter of not destroying
> it.

It's also a matter of maintaining it.  When code changes around it,
someone has to go in and fix that part of the code and verify that it
still "works".   Chances are there's no one doing that, probably because
most people have moved to cups).

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-06, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick<neil@digimed.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
>> It's definitely huge.  It does however seem to work pretty well.
>>
>>
>
> Huge?
>
> root@fireball / # equery s cups
>   * net-print/cups-1.5.0-r2
>           Total files : 482
>           Total size  : 6.41 MiB
> root@fireball / #
>
>
> If that is considered huge, we have a new standard.  lol

I stand corrected.  For some reason I was under the impression it was
a lot bigger than that.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Boys, you have ALL
                                  at               been selected to LEAVE th'
                              gmail.com            PLANET in 15 minutes!!

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-06, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nobody is forcing you to anything: but upstream projects (like
> LibreOffice) need to fulfill the needs of all their users... not only
> you. Don't force *them* to support every single printing system in the
> planet earth;

I wasn't complaining about lack of support for other printing systems.
I was complaining about the lack of support for _no_ printing system.
It seems dumb to make somebody without a printer install CUPs seems.

> Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The
> LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and
> only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours.

What about the lack of a CUPS install would make LibreOffice fail?
Does LibreOffice depend on libraries provided by CUPS even if you
don't want to print?

As for cups being "huge", the standard install comprises over 500
files. That's still huge in my book.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I have the power to
                                  at               HALT PRODUCTION on all
                              gmail.com            TEENAGE SEX COMEDIES!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-06, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for cups being "huge", the standard install comprises over 500
> files. That's still huge in my book.

Most of those are going to be ppd files, right? File a bug asking for
'use' flags, or an ebuild split, or some other mechanism to only
install a subset of those.


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-06, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nobody is forcing you to anything: but upstream projects (like
>> LibreOffice) need to fulfill the needs of all their users... not only
>> you. Don't force *them* to support every single printing system in the
>> planet earth;
>
> I wasn't complaining about lack of support for other printing systems.

And I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Alan.

> I was complaining about the lack of support for _no_ printing system.
> It seems dumb to make somebody without a printer install CUPs seems.

I don't have a printer, and I need CUPS. Again, it's not about the
necessities of one user (being you or me), it's about the necessities
of the majority. And the majority of users installing LibreOffice
*need* printing support. And CUPS is the best option available.

>> Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The
>> LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and
>> only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours.
>
> What about the lack of a CUPS install would make LibreOffice fail?
> Does LibreOffice depend on libraries provided by CUPS even if you
> don't want to print?

That's not the point: the point is that you want to force *another*
configuration that the devs have to test and maintain and QA, and you
don't seem to care that your use-case is not very common.

In other words: if the devs keep allowing LO without CUPS support,
they need to spend time and effort to make sure that this option
works. On the other hand, if they make CUPS mandatory they only need
to worry about the normal/common case of users of office suites having
the need to print, and the cost is to force a tiny (less than 10 Mb
program) to some (very few) users.

> As for cups being "huge", the standard install comprises over 500
> files. That's still huge in my book.

Again, if you are installing LibreOffice, which has 3098 files and
uses 260 Mb of hd space, it makes no sense at all that you complain
against CUPS size.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-09-06, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for cups being "huge", the standard install comprises over 500
>> files. That's still huge in my book.
>
> Most of those are going to be ppd files, right? File a bug asking for
> 'use' flags, or an ebuild split, or some other mechanism to only
> install a subset of those.

Actually, in my case I only have 9 ppd files in my computer, none of
them installed by CUPS. The bulk of files in net-print/cups is man
pages (51), html pages for the web interface (110) and templates
(140). Right there is thr 60% of the whole package.

Really, CUPS is a very small daemon for all the things it does. I
don't see any gain by splitting the package.

Regards
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 21:12:32 schrieb Grant Edwards:
> On 2011-09-06, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nobody is forcing you to anything: but upstream projects (like
> > LibreOffice) need to fulfill the needs of all their users... not only
> > you. Don't force *them* to support every single printing system in the
> > planet earth;
> 
> I wasn't complaining about lack of support for other printing systems.
> I was complaining about the lack of support for _no_ printing system.
> It seems dumb to make somebody without a printer install CUPs seems.

Agreed. It could be useful to have cups splitted into client and server 
ebuilds. Or to have a server-USE for it. I don't know, if this is possible at 
all or how much work this would be. ebuilds like LO could then depend on cups-
client or still work with server-disabled cups.

> > Because the Open Source community has limited resources. The
> > LibreOffice devs (or maybe the Gentoo ones) choose to support CUPS and
> > only CUPS, because it takes care of the most cases, not only yours.
> 
> What about the lack of a CUPS install would make LibreOffice fail?
> Does LibreOffice depend on libraries provided by CUPS even if you
> don't want to print?
> As for cups being "huge", the standard install comprises over 500
> files. That's still huge in my book.

Afaict most of these files are related to the web-frontend.
And 500 files isn't that much.
See firefox for example:

~ $ equery s firefox
 * www-client/firefox-6.0
         Total files : 3801
         Total size  : 722.95 MiB

compared to another browser

~ $ equery s konqueror
 * kde-base/konqueror-4.7.0
         Total files : 255
         Total size  : 5.81 MiB

:)

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 448 bytes --]

Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
>
> See firefox for example:
> 
> ~ $ equery s firefox
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>          Total files : 3801
>          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
> 

Why is your firefox so big?

metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
 * www-client/firefox-6.0
         Total files : 3779
         Total size  : 89.42 MiB

Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-09-06, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-06, Neil Bothwick<neil@digimed.co.uk>   wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:25:22 +0100, Stroller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't CUPS really bug and bloaty and horrible?
>>> It's definitely huge.  It does however seem to work pretty well.
>>>
>>>
>> Huge?
>>
>> root@fireball / # equery s cups
>>    * net-print/cups-1.5.0-r2
>>            Total files : 482
>>            Total size  : 6.41 MiB
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>>
>> If that is considered huge, we have a new standard.  lol
> I stand corrected.  For some reason I was under the impression it was
> a lot bigger than that.
>

I thought so.  If it was huge, I was hoping you would post yours.  Maybe 
you have more "stuff" turned on that I do or something.

I do like the next reply in this thread tho.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:27:38 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:

> > I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house,
> > who put light switches inside cupboards.  
> 
> Hmmm... weird, but I sort of like that. Gives your house a special
> touch. How cool is this, a visitor asks you to turn on the light, and
> you say 'Sure!', open the cupboard, reach behind the onions and <click>
> there will be light.

Put another way, a visitor asks me to turn the light on, I walk out the
room and he thinks "WTF? I only asked him to turn a light on!"


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'm Bugs Bunny of Borg.  What's up Collective?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Sebastian Beßler
<sebastian@darkmetatron.de> wrote:
> Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
>>
>> See firefox for example:
>>
>> ~ $ equery s firefox
>>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>>          Total files : 3801
>>          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
>>
>
> Why is your firefox so big?
>
> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>         Total files : 3779
>         Total size  : 89.42 MiB
>
> Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.

Mine is bigger! ;)

 * www-client/firefox-6.0
         Total files : 3517
         Total size  : 723.57 MiB

libxul.so by itself is around 350MB. I have "nostrip" in my FEATURES.
I guess that's the reason...

Rebuilt without "nostrip". The results:

 * www-client/firefox-6.0
         Total files : 3517
         Total size  : 88.97 MiB

Mystery solved? :)

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Hartmut Figge]

Dale:

> If it was huge, I was hoping you would post yours. Maybe you have
> more "stuff" turned on that I do or something.

hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s cups
 * net-print/cups-1.4.8-r1
         Total files : 578
         Total size  : 9 MiB
hafi@i5 ~ $

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Paul Hartman
<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Sebastian Beßler
> <sebastian@darkmetatron.de> wrote:
>> Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
>>>
>>> See firefox for example:
>>>
>>> ~ $ equery s firefox
>>>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>>>          Total files : 3801
>>>          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
>>>
>>
>> Why is your firefox so big?
>>
>> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>>         Total files : 3779
>>         Total size  : 89.42 MiB
>>
>> Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.
>
> Mine is bigger! ;)
>
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>         Total files : 3517
>         Total size  : 723.57 MiB
>
> libxul.so by itself is around 350MB. I have "nostrip" in my FEATURES.
> I guess that's the reason...
>
> Rebuilt without "nostrip". The results:
>
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>         Total files : 3517
>         Total size  : 88.97 MiB
>
> Mystery solved? :)
>

Seems I left nostrip enabled for quite some time by accident... check
out this one:

 * kde-base/kdelibs-4.7.0-r1
         Total files : 24538
         Total size  : 1.12 GiB

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Hartmut Figge]

Sebastian Beßler:

> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>          Total files : 3779
>          Total size  : 89.42 MiB

hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s seamonkey
 * www-client/seamonkey-2.0.14-r1
         Total files : 412
         Total size  : 44.03 MiB

;)

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 23:52:34 schrieb Sebastian Beßler:
> Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
> > See firefox for example:
> > 
> > ~ $ equery s firefox
> > 
> >  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> >  
> >          Total files : 3801
> >          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
> 
> Why is your firefox so big?

dunno
I have FEATURES splitdebug enabled, but that shouldn't make that much 
difference.
"alsa crashreporter dbus ipc libnotify linguas_de methodjit startup-
notification webm" is my USE for FF. I'm running ~amd64

> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>          Total files : 3779
>          Total size  : 89.42 MiB
> 
> Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.

Yes, mysterious indeed.

> Greetings
> Sebastian Beßler

Regards,
Michael

Big Firefox (Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?)

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 17:30:54 schrieb Paul Hartman:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Sebastian Beßler
> 
> <sebastian@darkmetatron.de> wrote:
> > Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
> >> See firefox for example:
> >> 
> >> ~ $ equery s firefox
> >>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> >>          Total files : 3801
> >>          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
> > 
> > Why is your firefox so big?
> > 
> > metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
> >  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> >         Total files : 3779
> >         Total size  : 89.42 MiB
> > 
> > Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.
> 
> Mine is bigger! ;)
> 
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>          Total files : 3517
>          Total size  : 723.57 MiB
> 
> libxul.so by itself is around 350MB. I have "nostrip" in my FEATURES.
> I guess that's the reason...
> 
> Rebuilt without "nostrip". The results:
> 
>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>          Total files : 3517
>          Total size  : 88.97 MiB
> 
> Mystery solved? :)

Hm. My libxul.so is ~29MB.

~ $ du -hs /usr/lib64/firefox/
65M     /usr/lib64/firefox/

Looks like my equery is broken *g*

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 21:12:32 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> What about the lack of a CUPS install would make LibreOffice fail?
> Does LibreOffice depend on libraries provided by CUPS even if you
> don't want to print?

Why don't you try it? Unmerge cups and see if LO still works for you. If
it does, add cups to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent of
the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent
takes the other ninety percent of the time.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Brennan Shacklett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@gmx.de>wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 23:52:34 schrieb Sebastian Beßler:
> > Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
> > > See firefox for example:
> > >
> > > ~ $ equery s firefox
> > >
> > >  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> > >
> > >          Total files : 3801
> > >          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
> >
> > Why is your firefox so big?
>
> dunno
> I have FEATURES splitdebug enabled, but that shouldn't make that much
> difference.
> "alsa crashreporter dbus ipc libnotify linguas_de methodjit startup-
> notification webm" is my USE for FF. I'm running ~amd64
>
> > metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
> >  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> >          Total files : 3779
> >          Total size  : 89.42 MiB
> >
> > Mysterious, nearly ten times bigger.
>
> Yes, mysterious indeed.
>
> > Greetings
> > Sebastian Beßler
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
I also have a ~750 MiB firefox and it is because of the  splitdebug feature.
Take a look at this:
348M    /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/firefox/sdk/lib/libxul.so.debug
348M    /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/firefox/libxul.so.debug

Lots of debug info I guess...
--Brennan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1720 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2011, 00:43:29 schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 23:52:34 schrieb Sebastian Beßler:
> > Am 06.09.2011 23:35, schrieb Michael Schreckenbauer:
> > > See firefox for example:
> > > 
> > > ~ $ equery s firefox
> > > 
> > >  * www-client/firefox-6.0
> > >  
> > >          Total files : 3801
> > >          Total size  : 722.95 MiB
> > 
> > Why is your firefox so big?
> 
> dunno
> I have FEATURES splitdebug enabled, but that shouldn't make that much
> difference.

... but it is. 634MB *wow*

Mystery solved.

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]



Am 07.09.2011 00:39, schrieb Hartmut Figge:
> Sebastian Beßler:
> 
>> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>>  * www-client/firefox-6.0
>>          Total files : 3779
>>          Total size  : 89.42 MiB
> 
> hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s seamonkey
>  * www-client/seamonkey-2.0.14-r1
>          Total files : 412
>          Total size  : 44.03 MiB

And that after Mozilla droped the suite because it was so big and
clumsy. What a change can a few years make ;-)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Dale:
>
>> If it was huge, I was hoping you would post yours. Maybe you have
>> more "stuff" turned on that I do or something.
> hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s cups
>   * net-print/cups-1.4.8-r1
>           Total files : 578
>           Total size  : 9 MiB
> hafi@i5 ~ $
>
> Hartmut

I'm running 1.5.  At least we know it grows when watered.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Dale]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>
> Am 07.09.2011 00:39, schrieb Hartmut Figge:
>> Sebastian Beßler:
>>
>>> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
>>>   * www-client/firefox-6.0
>>>           Total files : 3779
>>>           Total size  : 89.42 MiB
>> hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s seamonkey
>>   * www-client/seamonkey-2.0.14-r1
>>           Total files : 412
>>           Total size  : 44.03 MiB
> And that after Mozilla droped the suite because it was so big and
> clumsy. What a change can a few years make ;-)
>

Hmmm.

root@fireball / # equery s firefox
  * www-client/firefox-3.6.20
          Total files : 89
          Total size  : 3.51 MiB
root@fireball / # equery s seamonkey
  * www-client/seamonkey-2.3.1
          Total files : 118
          Total size  : 41.13 MiB
root@fireball / #

My firefox is really small. < scratches head >

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alex Schuster]

Dale writes:

> Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> >
> > Am 07.09.2011 00:39, schrieb Hartmut Figge:
> >> Sebastian Beßler:
> >>
> >>> metatron@Shao ~ $ equery s firefox
> >>>   * www-client/firefox-6.0
> >>>           Total files : 3779
> >>>           Total size  : 89.42 MiB
> >> hafi@i5 ~ $ equery s seamonkey
> >>   * www-client/seamonkey-2.0.14-r1
> >>           Total files : 412
> >>           Total size  : 44.03 MiB
> > And that after Mozilla droped the suite because it was so big and
> > clumsy. What a change can a few years make ;-)
> >
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> root@fireball / # equery s firefox
>   * www-client/firefox-3.6.20
>           Total files : 89
>           Total size  : 3.51 MiB
> root@fireball / # equery s seamonkey
>   * www-client/seamonkey-2.3.1
>           Total files : 118
>           Total size  : 41.13 MiB
> root@fireball / #
> 
> My firefox is really small. < scratches head >

You are still using Firefox 3, which is quite small because it makes use
of net-libs/xulrunner. Firefox 6 uses its own bundled xulrunner stuff, so
this package is much larger.

	Wonko

[gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Hartmut Figge]

Dale:

> root@fireball / # equery s firefox
>   * www-client/firefox-3.6.20
>           Total files : 89
>           Total size  : 3.51 MiB
> root@fireball / # equery s seamonkey

That one is an old FF, 4.0b3pre, extracted from a .tar,bz2:

hafi@i5 ~/ff/firefox $ du -hs .
32M

Hm.

>   * www-client/seamonkey-2.3.1
>           Total files : 118
>           Total size  : 41.13 MiB
> root@fireball / #

And this is my current self-compiled Trunk-SM, 2.6a1:

hafi@i5 ~/seam/1109070013/seamonkey $ du -hs .
39M

> My firefox is really small. < scratches head >

Amazing. :)

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:20:06 PM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:07:08 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > I think this system was designed by the previous owner of my house,
> > > who put light switches inside cupboards.
> > 
> > You're lucky, I got a booze cupboard build in front of the main
> > distribution box.
> 
> What I failed to mention was that the cupboard was often in a different
> room. The switch for the living room wall lights is still in the kitchen
> cupboard, behind the pickled onions :-O

I would, instead of rewiring it all, replace the switches with those remote-
control ones and simply control it from a tablet-pc :)

(Google for home automation if you want to know more)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 09:56:13 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:

> > What I failed to mention was that the cupboard was often in a
> > different room. The switch for the living room wall lights is still
> > in the kitchen cupboard, behind the pickled onions :-O  
> 
> I would, instead of rewiring it all, replace the switches with those
> remote- control ones and simply control it from a tablet-pc :)

Already done, except I'm using X10, which means I can also control them
from my phone or the TV remote :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I am MODERATOR of BORG. Follow the rules or be assimilated.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 06 September 2011 23:53:16 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent of
> the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent
> takes the other ninety percent of the time.

Where I worked we used to say the first 50% of the project takes the first 90% 
of the time, and the other50% of the project takes the other 90% of the 
time.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:55:08 +0100
Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 September 2011 23:53:16 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent
> > of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten
> > percent takes the other ninety percent of the time.
> 
> Where I worked we used to say the first 50% of the project takes the
> first 90% of the time, and the other50% of the project takes the
> other 90% of the time.
> 

Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible
estimate for how long it will take.

Then multiply by pi

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 11 September 2011 14:06:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible
> estimate for how long it will take.
> 
> Then multiply by pi

On one large project (200 man-years) we found the factor was 2.3. But by the 
time we had enough data to calculate it, the project was so far behind that 
it got cancelled.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:06:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible
> estimate for how long it will take.
> 
> Then multiply by pi

To how many places?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It's not who you know; it's whom you know.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:17:20 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:06:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> > Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst
> > possible estimate for how long it will take.
> > 
> > Then multiply by pi
> 
> To how many places?
> 
> 

As many as fit in your calculator (special answer just to confuse the
project managers)  :-)



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com