FS#56445 - [gtk3-print-backends] Merge into gtk3

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Saturday, 25 November 2017, 16:51 GMT
Last edited by Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) - Sunday, 26 November 2017, 15:33 GMT
Task Type General Gripe
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Jan de Groot (JGC)
Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No


There is not much point to having a separate package for this, it only creates confusion. Please merge it into the regular gtk3 package.

I have been bitten by this in the past (printer not appearing in Evince) and just now got an email about printers not appearing in the Mousepad text editor (fixed after installing gtk3-print-backends).

The list of duplicate bugs on  FS#56139  shows how widespread this problem is.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig)
Sunday, 26 November 2017, 15:33 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  3.22.26+47+g3a1a7135a2-1
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Saturday, 25 November 2017, 16:57 GMT
It was split to not pull in the large deps for the many, many systems without printers.
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Saturday, 25 November 2017, 17:08 GMT
That argument doesn't make sense to me; it just depends on colord, rest and libcups, less than 9 MiB total.

Printers not showing up is very confusing and definitely worth the 9 MiB it would take to prevent.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Sunday, 26 November 2017, 07:41 GMT
I'm very nearly positive that that argument would have been considered when gtk3-print-backends was first created, and I really think looking at pacman's output is not an unreasonable solution.

That being said, future discoverability would be aided by being able to do something like `paccheck --opt-depends --recursive --quiet application_not_showing_printers`.

It's a pity pacman itself doesn't have a way to recursively show uninstalled optdepends.
Comment by Evangelos Foutras (foutrelis) - Sunday, 26 November 2017, 08:43 GMT
Perhaps it seemed like the correct choice then. Currently, I can't see how this isn't unnecessary splitting (which even Debian doesn't do).

Given how many requests this issue has generated, merging should have been considered *much* sooner.
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Sunday, 26 November 2017, 14:01 GMT
The split was introduced because of https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50513
Undoing the split is fine to me.
Comment by Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) - Sunday, 26 November 2017, 15:03 GMT
Yeah, sure; let's undo the split.