Re: libcupsfilters: mupdf not "Required"

On 12/9/25 8:25 AM, Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
List) wrote:
> Am 06.12.25 um 22:30 schrieb Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev
> Mailing List):
>> Am 06.12.25 um 21:40 schrieb Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via
>> blfs-dev Mailing List):
>>> On 12/6/25 10:31 AM, Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing
>>> List) wrote:
>>>> Am 06.12.25 um 17:09 schrieb Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev
>>>> Mailing List):
>>>>> Mupdf is labeled as "Required" for libcupsfilters.  However,
>>>>> libcupsfilters-2.1.1 can be built without mupdf, using the config-option
>>>>>
>>>>>      --disable-mutool
>>>>>
>>>>> I just did so and the build was fine, including the tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I suggest do downgrade mupdf to "Recommended" or perhaps even
>>>>> "Optional" for libcupsfilters.
>>>> This seems to go even further as there is also
>>>>
>>>>      --disable-ghostscript
>>>>
>>>> as a config-option.  So it seems to me that ghostscript can/should also
>>>> be downgraded, like mupdf.
>>>>
>>>> Here's part of the build-log, building without both, ghostscript and
>>>> mupdf:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Build configuration:
>>>>           libcups:         2.4.15
>>>>           cups-config:     system
>>>>           poppler:         yes
>>>>           ghostscript:     no
>>>>           gs-path:
>>>>           mutool:          no
>>>>           mutool-path:
>>>>           ippfind-path:    system
>>>>           imagefilters:    yes
>>>>           jpeg:            yes
>>>>           exif:            yes
>>>>           png:             yes
>>>>           tiff:            yes
>>>>           dbus:            yes
>>>>           werror:          no
>>>>           test-font:       /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf
>>> I like that, but to decide whether to make them recommended or optional,
>>> I'm wondering what they do for libcupsfilters.
>> Or for cups-filters which also has those two config-options.
>>
>>> We do say ghostscript OR mupdf.  I'm guessing they convert to a pdf
>>> instead of the default ps format.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of them is needed to just output to a pdf file.
>> Or perhaps even both.  I had removed mupdf from the system and had
>> rebuilt libcupsfilters _and_ cups-filters with ghostscript but without
>> mupdf.  I just discovered that now Firefox and Thunderbird hang and have
>> to be killed when trying to print a page or email via the system
>> print-dialogue.  Printing a pdf from LO-Writer or Kate still works.
> Man - this problem caused me serious pain and practically ruined my
> weekend (and more)!
>
> Only a few minutes ago and by pure chance, I discovered (by parsing the
> latest BLFS-cups-instructions _again_ for a mistake I might have made)
> that there is a new version for cups (-2.4.16).  Installing that version
> finally! solved the problem.  I was really at my wits end with this.
>
> I'm wondering why there have not been complaints regarding cups-2.4.15
> on blfs-support.  Maybe I'm the only one who follows and heeds the
> security advisories.
>
> Whatever - from this experience with cups-2.4.15, I suggest that
> security advisory
>
> 12.4 042 CUPS Date: 2025-12-02 Severity: Medium
>
> be amended for cups-2.4.16 or that a new SA be issued.  Perhaps users
> should even be warned against using cups-2.4.15 on blfs-support.
>
>
> Rainer

Hi Rainer,

Thank you so much for letting us know! I will make sure that gets in 
when I have a chance tomorrow :)

I will also make sure to write a mail to blfs-support about it as well 
given that it's a regression from a security update!

- Doug

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page