Hi, this commit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hplip/c/8104c07571940e12c97025aeb6a61f5d0d79cf91?branch=rawhide has added a new Recommends: Recommends: (%{name}-gui%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} if qt5-qtbase-gui%{?_isa}) which causes hplip-gui to be installed if qt5-qtbase-gui is installed. This is basically bloatware and makes user systems look "unclean" as we see in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1k04b7x/its_annoying_that_fedora_installs_packages_or/ I was going to cite it as a violation of the application independence guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_independence but the guidelines don't quite apply here and probably need to be rewritten. Anyway, the spirit of the guidelines applies. :) Please be very very careful with dependencies on packages that provide desktop files. I suggest simply removing this Recommends. (It has also added a Suggests, which is harmless.) Reproducible: Always
Hi Michael, AFAIK it installs hplip-gui IF hplip and qt5-qtbase-gui are installed, so the person having the hplip-gui installed has hplip installed too. Adding Frank in CC, since he filed the request, in case he wants to make argument about it. I can remove the recommends for now (I don't have strong opinion about being it there, although it might come in handy on desktops), until we decide otherwise.
Different approach would be remove hplip from comps - this way hplip-gui is not transitionally installed on every machine is based on comps with hplip, additionally printer installation would not include legacy drivers by default and used driverless standards by default if the device supports it.
FEDORA-2025-5a56db32ac (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5a56db32ac
FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7
FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707
Thanks Zdenek! I've created https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1456 to consider adjusting the packaging guidelines.
FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6
FEDORA-2025-5a56db32ac (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-0e2b89d5c7 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Apologies, just spotted this. (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #1) > > Adding Frank in CC, since he filed the request, in case he wants to make > argument about it. Unfortunately, I don't have one that will be compelling against the "ZOMG HOW DARE THEY PLACE NEW ICONS IN MY APPLICATION GRID???" types. (In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #0) > This > is basically bloatware and makes user systems look "unclean" as we see in > this reddit thread: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1k04b7x/ > its_annoying_that_fedora_installs_packages_or/ The irony here is that hplip is a 30 MB package that installs all of the Python code that implements all of the HPLIP featureset. hplip-gui is a 2.2 MB package that consists of a bunch of icons, the /usr/bin/ entrypoints to the graphical tools (that are ALREADY INSTALLED by hplip), and .desktop files for launching two of those tools. If we want to call something bloatware, **HPLIP** is the bloatware. And all of its bloatware-y-ness is installed by the hplip package itself — the only things _lacking_ are the desktop icons. But I get it, it's the optics. If hplip is installing 30 MB of software behind-the-scenes, users will never notice that. But stick two .desktop files in /usr/share/applications and people freak out. My goal with the added "Recommends:" was, as I said in the original PR, that a `sudo dnf install hplip` would include the graphical tools _IF_ appropriate (like on a desktop system with Qt available), so that users wouldn't be expected to have to realize they _also_ needed to `sudo dnf install hplip-gui` to get the _icons_ for those tools. But if hplip is installed by default, then I fully appreciate how it's a problem to include those icons by default, even on systems where they can potentially be useful. One solution I could see is breaking up the package into something like an hplip-base (required by hplip) and an hplip-gui (conditionally recommended by hplip), and changing comps so that only hplip-base is installed by default. But I accept in advance the anticipated response that that's more effort than it's worth, so I'm fine with just removing the Recommends.
(In reply to "FeRD" (Frank Dana) from comment #13) > But I get it, it's the optics. If hplip is installing 30 MB of software > behind-the-scenes, users will never notice that. But stick two .desktop > files in /usr/share/applications and people freak out. Precisely. :) > My goal with the added "Recommends:" was, as I said in the original PR, that > a `sudo dnf install hplip` would include the graphical tools _IF_ > appropriate (like on a desktop system with Qt available), so that users > wouldn't be expected to have to realize they _also_ needed to `sudo dnf > install hplip-gui` to get the _icons_ for those tools. Thing is, these tools are ugly and only seems useful for printer developers. Fedora users expect to use GNOME or KDE or other desktop printer settings to configure their printers. > One solution I could see is breaking up the package into something like an > hplip-base (required by hplip) and an hplip-gui (conditionally recommended > by hplip), and changing comps so that only hplip-base is installed by > default. But I accept in advance the anticipated response that that's more > effort than it's worth, so I'm fine with just removing the Recommends. Nothing should conditionally recommend desktop applications like hplip-gui. Desktop applications should generally only be installed via explicit user choice. You can use Suggests (weaker weak dependency) to hint that the user might be interested in installing the app, though I'm not sure that ever actually used anywhere.
FEDORA-2025-f9a5867bf6 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-6b118d5707 (hplip-3.25.2-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.