>Number:         19851
>Category:       pkg
>Synopsis:       print/ghostscript-esp make extract(!) installs(!) cups
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    pkg-manager
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Jan 14 14:46:00 PST 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Richard Rauch
>Release:        NetBSD/i386 v1.6 with a [semi]-current kernel
>Organization:
n/a
>Environment:
NetBSD hermes 1.6K NetBSD 1.6K (GENERIC) #0: Wed Dec  4 22:11:15 UTC 2002     autobuild@tgm.daemon.org:/autobuild/HEAD/i386/OBJ/autobuild/HEAD/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC i386
>Description:
I wanted to look at the extra drivers in the ghostscript-esp.  I didn't
want to delete my installed postscript, so I did a "make extract".
I went off to do other things, and when I came back, I was shocked
to see that my computer was installing CUPS.

Reading more closely, maybe it makes sense to *extract* CUPS in order
to integrate it, or to build CUPS as a *required* dependancy for
building/installing.

But just "make extract"?  I can't begin to imagine why extracting
a source archive should require CUPS be installed.

If it is necessary, then at least include a big notice about this
in the DESCR.  I don't care for having users added automatically to
my system, without my consent.  It would be a little better if
CUPS could remove all traces of itself when you deinstall, but you
are left with at least a few (documented---I hope none undocumented!)
directories to manually clean up after CUPS is removed.

>How-To-Repeat:
On a clean, CUPS-less system:

cd ...pkgsrc/print/ghostscript-esp
make extract

>Fix:
None given.  If it's really necessary to do this, then a blatant,
in-your-face comment in the DESCR is in order.  Otherwise, maybe
changing the CUPS link to a regular dependancy?
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: