> See the manual pages of the commands (attached, use "bunzip2 <file>; > man ./<file>" to read them).
I suspect we just want the lpr command. Although the CUPS lpr manpage does look like a good place to start (-C, -J and -T seem to differ in meaning somewhat; I'm not sure we want to standardize -r because of the potential for losing someone's file in a paper jam, as noted in the LPRng manpage; -o doesn't seem to be supported by LPRng). But other than that the CUPS options seem to also be available in LPRng. > CUPS is also compatible to LPD servers when one runs the CUPS-LPD > mini-daemon. See Not an LSB or LDPS issue, I don't think. > I would not recommend, that programs have a hard-coded call of "lpr" > (as KDE 2) We might want to recommend that applications give the user the option of specifying a command (as Netscape does). But we should also recommend that they default to "lpr", as Netscape does (programs should be able to print in a simple way without any configuration and the "lpr" command line is the portable way to do that). > even direct talking to a running LPD daemon (as LyX). Heavens no. We don't want to require that an lpd daemon be present any more than we require that an SMTP daemon be present (the latter *was* the subject of much discussion). See http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/spec/command/sendmail.sgml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=lsb for what we have done vis-a-vis sendmail.
