Subject: pkg/19851: print/ghostscript-esp make extract(!) installs(!) cups
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/14/2003 14:45:38
>Synopsis: print/ghostscript-esp make extract(!) installs(!) cups
>Arrival-Date: Tue Jan 14 14:46:00 PST 2003
>Originator: Richard Rauch
>Release: NetBSD/i386 v1.6 with a [semi]-current kernel
NetBSD hermes 1.6K NetBSD 1.6K (GENERIC) #0: Wed Dec 4 22:11:15 UTC 2002 email@example.com:/autobuild/HEAD/i386/OBJ/autobuild/HEAD/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC i386
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
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.
On a clean, CUPS-less system:
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?