Bug#997795: closed by Brian Potkin <claremont102@gmail.com> (Re: Bug#997795: hplip: Make a hplip-plugin-installer package)
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the pointer to the official site. Looks like the OpenPrinting mirror
has been corrected by now. Is it normal that hp-plugin tries to download from
OpenPrinting instead of the official site?
On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:52:43 P.M. EDT Brian Potkin wrote:
> You are are not the first (nor will you be the last) to have a problem
> installing a plugin. This is upstream's responsibility.
Oh I've no doubt I'm not the only one; that's why I'm thinking about how the
whole situation might be improved.
> > 1. Automatic updating of the plugin to the corresponding version - which,
> > assuming an environment that uses one of the affected devices, is
> > implicitly required by the hplip package for it to be at all useful.
>
> This is one of my sticking points. Automatic? A user has a device that
> requires a non-free plugin for scanning. The user never scans, but is
> still obliged to download and install it.
Well, no, they wouldn't be. Regarding "automatic", I specifically mean for
*updating* the plugin. Initially installing the plugin would still be a manual
decision, in that the sysadmin (who, yes, might also be the user) would have
to 'apt install hp-plugin-installer'. If they don't need it, they'd have no
reason to install it in the first place. Nothing would depend on hp-plugin-
installer, except that hplip *might* suggest it. (I thought I already said all
that, but perhaps I was unclear.)
This is how I'm thinking a hp-plugin-installer package will work:
Importantly, it must pre-depend on the current hplip package. When the
sysadmin installs it, its postinst script runs 'hp-plugin -i'. Sysadmin has to
answer the two prompts to download and accept the license, which they would
have to do anyway. Then in future when hplip packages receive an update, hp-
plugin-install is also updated; its postinst gets triggered and runs the
*updated* hp-plugin, which downloads the updated version of the plugin (with
the usual prompts).
The implication of this is that the sysadmin is always in control of the
installation of the (updated) plugin, and the update always takes place at the
same time as other package updates - the sysadmin doesn't have to remember to
do it, or else be reminded at a random, possibly inopportune time.
> > > There is also the matter of what runs the proposed package. It cannot
> > > be from any of the HPLIP packages because, as the Debian Policy Manual
> > >
> > > says:
> > > In addition, the packages in main must not require or recommend
> > > a package outside of main for compilation or execution...
> >
> > hplip could suggest it, though. At any rate, I imagine the sysadmin would
> > install hp-plugin-installer (from contrib) themselves. They would only
> > need to do that once, and only if they actually had a device that needs
> > the plugin to be installed. hp-plugin-installer would be versioned
> > alongside hplip and update at the same time, and thereby run hp-plugin to
> > grab and install the necessary plugin version at the time (or immediately
> > after) the hplip update is installed.
>
> Any issues with hp-scan would be relected in hp-plugin-installer. Why
> not just run hp-scan?
I'm not sure why you brought up hp-scan. Did you mean hp-plugin? If that's
what you meant, then yes, issues would be reflected, and that's part of the
point. With 'hp-plugin-installer' as I propose, the sysadmin would be informed
of a problem acquiring the necessary updated plugin, and can take action to
correct that, all within moments of the hplip packages themselves being
updated. At present, the problem might be hidden for however long until the
user tries to print or scan, at which point corrective action by the sysadmin
might be inconvenient or not immediately possible.
> > > Ultimately, it is the user's responsibility to download a non-free
> > > plugin.
> >
> > Well, to be precise, it's the sysadmin's responsibility to install said
> > plugin, rather than the user's (unless they happen to be the sysadmin, but
> > then it's a question of which hat they're wearing at any point in time)
>
> Many users wear both hats.
Sure, but that doesn't invalidate my point. There's plenty of situations where
it isn't the case - e.g., someone managing a system for a non-technically-
literate relative or friend, or the admin of a school computer lab...
> BTW, what is your HP device?
Color LaserJet Pro MFP M277dw.
Best,
Brendon
Reply to: