Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:15:38 +0200
   From: Till Kamppeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   Robert L Krawitz wrote:
   >   7) Various minor problems in the PPD files have been fixed.  The
   >      most notable change is that the names of the option groups have
   >      been shortened so that they are shorter than 40 characters in all
   >      cases except for one case in French.

   I get the following (was probably the same before):

   /usr/share/cups/model/gutenprint/5.0/C/stp-escp2-cx4100.5.0.ppd.gz: FAIL
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice None!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 360x120sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 360x240sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 360sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 720x360sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 720sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 1440x720sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 720x1440sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 1440x1440ov!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 2880x1440sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
         **FAIL**  Bad Resolution choice 5760x1440sw!
                   REF: Page 84, section 5.9
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] g]#

   due to not standard-conforming choice names in the "Resolution" option.
   I do not know whether it breaks printing, as I do not have an
   appropriate test printer here, but it can be fixed by changing the short
   name of the "Resolution" option to something else than "Resolution" or
   by renaming the choices.

This has been around for as long as we've had a CUPS driver.  My
version of cupstestppd doesn't flag this, even in strict mode.

It's not clear to me how best to fix it (or whether to fix it at
all).  Some printers offer multiple choices for a given resolution,
although that problem's nowhere near as bad as it was in 4.2.  It's
not clear to me that we can fix it in any kind of compatible way.  Any
ideas?

-- 
Robert Krawitz                                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gutenprint   --    http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to