On Tue 19 Mar 2019 at 01:45:20 +0500, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote: > On 19.03.2019 0:38, Brian wrote: > > The advice is good but is there a good reason to advocate installing > > hplip from source rather than from the stretch package? > > > I didn't advocated per se the installation of upstream package, the > point was to tell OP of it's existence, among the other things. > As I stated before, I never used hplip myself, but it's good to know it > is already in official repositories.
You could have checked beforehand. > > $ rmadison -s stretch,stretch-backports hplip > hplip | 3.16.11+repack0-3 | stable | source, amd64, > arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x > hplip | 3.18.12+dfsg0-2~bpo9+1 | stretch-backports | source, amd64, > arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x > > I would recommend to install upstream package only if the most recent > version of it is absolutely required and I highly doubt it is required > in this case. You doubt correctlly. > But even then, personally, I'd try to build a backport from source > package available from 'experimental' first, or build from a tarball and > use tools, like 'checkinstall', to make a simple deb package. > Those procedures are right thing to do, but it's for the users to decide > if they are up for the task, because these procedures often require > serious time investment and expertise. Unnecessary. Backports already exist. It's only a matter of checking. -- Brian.
