On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:16:15 +0100, Till Kamppeter wrote:
Thanks for the patch.
The patch is not complete. The "hplip-data" binary package contains
the PPD files for HP's PostScript printers, so the "hplip" package is
also a printer driver. The PPD updater is in "hplip" (a packaging
bug).
Hi,
I based my patch on the summary I did both there [0] and when filing
the bug [1], both which didn't get reactions.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-printing/2011/11/msg00017.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-printing/2011/11/msg00050.html
My main question is "does hplip serve as printer driver for CUPS?", as
the main reasoning behind the printer-driver-* naming scheme is to have
them all installed in a standard installation involving cups.
(As a side note, I think we'll end up having two classes of
printer-driver-* packages: the ones installed trough recommends and the
ones only suggested by printer-driver-all, but that's yet to be
discussed.)
So there should be a new binary package named
"printer-driver-hp-postscript", containing these PPDs (current file
/usr/lib/cups/driver/hplip, should then be
/usr/lib/cups/driver/hp-postscript) and the corresponding PPD
updater.
Sounds sane,
The "hpijs-ppds" package is not needed by CUPS as CUPS auto-generates
the PPDs based on the .drv file in the "hpijs" binary package.
"hpijs-ppds" is only needed for non-CUPS spoolers which cannot cope
with a .drv file. WDYT, should "hpijs-ppds" also be renamed to
"printer-driver-..."? Should it keep its name? Or should it get
dropped?
Certainly not printer-driver-*, and I don't see a value in dropping it,
hence let's keep it as is.
Cheers,
OdyX
P.S. Do you want me to provide a new patch or will you work on it (I
don't mind preparing it, just say.)?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/00f376976e58e00a404a0d7cbf347...@raboud.com
