search

chaotic-aur / packages

Read-only mirror of Chaotic-AUR's main repository. Issues and bug reports welcome! 📑
https://gitlab.com/chaotic-aur/pkgbuilds
GNU General Public License v3.0
338 stars 20 forks source link

[Request] hplip-minimal #3289

Closed ayu2805 closed 2 months ago

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

Package:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hplip-minimal

Purpose:

Provides only printer drivers from HPLIP with proprietary binary plugin

Benefits:

No need to install hplip-lite with hplip-plugin

Building:

No response

Copyright:

BSD, MIT, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, custom:HPLIP

Expected Interest:

Few

Already available?

No

Unique request?

Yes

Banned package?

No

More information:

No response

Technetium1 commented 2 months ago

@ayu2805 what is the difference between this and hplip-lite which we currently provide? https://github.com/chaotic-aur/packages/issues/1949

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

what is the difference between this and hplip-lite which we currently provide? https://github.com/chaotic-aur/packages/issues/1949

@Technetium1 Well it's mainly a combination of hplip-lite and hplip-plugin. Less complication and mainly saves time(my time specifically).

xiota commented 2 months ago

Inclined to reject. hplip-minimal is a new package and the first package from the maintainer. At a glance, it has a couple packaging mistakes. In particular, merely including it in the repo would break the existing hplip and hplip-lite packages (because of how provides and conflicts work).

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

it has a couple packaging mistakes.

I see. Welp, actually I am the maintainer now. The package was deleted a few years ago and I picked it up recently. Although I noticed it now and added hplip-lite as a conflict package too, I would like to know the mistakes in the package's comments.

xiota commented 2 months ago

I should have looked more carefully at the username...

On further examination, I was mistaken about the conflicts being a problem. hplip-lite isn't needed in conflicts.

Does your package avoid the issue described at #2376 ?

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

I should have looked more carefully at the username...

  • License strings now follow SPDX format. https://spdx.org/licenses/
    • GPL licenses look like GPL-2.0-only and GPL-3.0-or-later
    • Custom licenses are formatted like LicenseRef-HPLIP

I see, I have updated it to MIT, BSD-3-Clause, GPL-3.0-or-later, GPL-2.0-only, LicenseRef-HPLIP

  • make should not have -j options, except to concurrency bugs. Then it's usually -j 1
    • Users can specify MAKEFLAGS in /etc/makepkg.conf

Got it, I just did that because hplip-lite also has that flag

  • validpgpkeys doesn't make sense when there's no signature file

I have added it now

On further examination, I was mistaken about the conflicts being a problem. hplip-lite isn't needed in conflicts.

Isn't it better to leave hplip-lite as conflict?

Does your package avoid the issue described at #2376 ?

I have updated it and checked it. I have a printer that requires hplip-plugin and after installation of the package I didn't have to manually setup the plugins. Though it's only for printers I have not added fax or scan libraries.

xiota commented 2 months ago

Thanks for updating the package.

I hope you checked the licenses for accuracy. The combination of GPL-3.0-or-later and GPL-2.0-only is unusual, and I was using them only as examples.

Keeping hplip-lite in conflicts would be okay. It's not necessarily better, but also not harmful. I usually try to minimize the package lists. It matters more for packages with longer lists.

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

Thanks for updating the package.

I hope you checked the licenses for accuracy. The combination of GPL-3.0-or-later and GPL-2.0-only is unusual, and I was using them only as examples.

I am pretty sure about GPL-2.0-only but I am kind of confused between GPL-3.0-only and GPL-3.0-or-later because it hasn't been mentioned properly and I just assumed it by comparing it with other hplip packages.

Keeping hplip-lite in conflicts would be okay. It's not necessarily better, but also not harmful. I usually try to minimize the package lists. It matters more for packages with longer lists.

Yeah, I just left it there just to avoid the "what if..." situations.

So will it be included in the chaotic-aur?

xiota commented 2 months ago

Assume "only" until proven otherwise. Usually the "or later" is in the readme or source headers. If you didn't see it, declare GPL-3.0-only.

I'll add it this weekend. If I forget, ping me next weekend.

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

Assume "only" until proven otherwise. Usually the "or later" is in the readme or source headers. If you didn't see it, declare GPL-3.0-only.

Got it, I'll do that instead. And will try to find the actual license too

I'll add it this weekend. If I forget, ping me next weekend.

Yeah sure.

Technetium1 commented 2 months ago

@ayu2805 seems off without doing close inspection, you are building in clean chroot right? Can you confirm these logs are like your own? hplip-minimal.log

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

@ayu2805 seems off without doing close inspection, you are building in clean chroot right? Can you confirm these logs are like your own? hplip-minimal.log

Yes indeed, also the errors from ./configure is expected those mishaps are from HP and since it's not creating any problem I didn't choose to fix it because even the offical hplip from [extra] repo haven't fixed it.

xiota commented 2 months ago

ppdc is included in extra/cups. Adding to makedeps should fix following. (I haven't tried building this package yet.)

./createPPD.sh: line 84: ppdc: command not found
gzip: ppd/hpcups/*.ppd: No such file or directory
./createPPD.sh: line 90: ppdc: command not found
gzip: ppd/hpijs/*.ppd: No such file or directory
ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

ppdc is included in extra/cups. Adding to makedeps should fix following. (I haven't tried building this package yet.)

./createPPD.sh: line 84: ppdc: command not found
gzip: ppd/hpcups/*.ppd: No such file or directory
./createPPD.sh: line 90: ppdc: command not found
gzip: ppd/hpijs/*.ppd: No such file or directory

Got it, I have added it to make dependencies. It seems I ignored that error earlier.

xiota commented 2 months ago

Produces errors at start of build. I'll look at it more later to see how important they are.

./configure: line 16778: test: syntax error: `-march=x86-64' unexpected
./configure: line 17939: 0: command not found
./configure: line 17944: 0: command not found
ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

Produces errors at start of build.

I thought it was harmless errors due to some syntax error from HP

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

@xiota Sorry for the ping but what's the current state of progress?

xiota commented 2 months ago

Consider applying some (if possible, all) of the patches at https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/hplip

ayu2805 commented 2 months ago

Consider applying some (if possible, all) of the patches

Some of the patches are unnecessary here because it's related to sane i.e. scan support which I have disabled because it's a better idea to use hplip from [extra] instead of using some other packages for full feature support. Though I have added the pserror, missing drivers and include cups/ppd.h patches.