[Discuss] Distribution that tests printing

[tmetro-blu at vl.com (Tom Metro)]

Laura Conrad wrote:
> Is it likely that it would have been simpler to just
> install the newer python by hand...

The effort required to backport a package varies greatly, and is largely
dependent on how extensive the list of dependencies are, how specific
they are (will older libraries satisfy them?), and if they are even
available on the older distribution.

Here's a decent reference on building packages:
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/20

Sometimes it is as simple as downloading the source package, and
rebuilding on the older distribution.

The other option is to hunt for PPAs that others have set up with back
ported versions. It isn't unusual to find those that skew by one or two
versions. Not a whole lot of effort (motivation) is put into back
porting, but sometimes you can find a PPA that at one time was setup to
do "cutting edge" development of the latest version of a package on the
current distribution, and it gets left behind as the current
distribution moves on.


> ...or even on 10.04 from the 10.10 repository?

Anything that is compiled pretty much never works across distribution
versions. Perl applications have a good chance of working. Python, less
so, due to more frequent incompatible changes in the interpreter.


> Is it likely to cause problems if I "downgrade" back to 10.04?

It is likely to be untested or rarely tested.


> It's possible, although difficult to confirm, that all my problems have
> to do with a bad version of ghostscript.  So would it make more sense to
> just try installing the 10.04 version of ghostscript and see if that
> fixes things?

This is the option I recommend exploring. Jumping forward a version may
also resolve it. See if you can dig up evidence in ghostscript-specific
mailing lists and bug trackers.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/