Sorry about the delay. Was a long weekend here. Consolidating all queries below. Replies inline.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 01:15:42PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > I am sponsoring the following fast-track for Venky TV. > > The case requests Micro binding and the timeout is 10/02/2009. > [...] > > Targeted release: OpenSolaris 2010.02 > > Requested binding: Minor > > You should probably pick a release binding. (For what it's worth, > "Micro" is effectively the same as "Minor" if you don't also include > "Patch" and if the PAC isn't planning a "10.1" release. But knowing > whether you intended to included Patch/Micro release binding, and > therefore a potential S10 back-port, would be useful.) We do not intend to backport this to S10. > > 4.5. Interfaces: > > > > CUPS and LP interfaces are listed in PSARC 2008/130. > > > > This case does not introduce any new interfaces nor does it > > remove any. > > Can you describe the upgrade and install experience? My guess would be: > > - If an existing system is upgraded (either via SysV packages or IPS), > it will continue to run whatever service it was running before. The > new default does not take effect. The user must set the flag if he > wants to switch. > > - When a new system is installed, it will pick up the new default and > run CUPS. > > Is that right? That is right. >> 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: >> >> Some Solaris LP features like Trusted printing, NIS support, >> Forms printing are not available in CUPS at present. Customers >> who need any of these functionalities will need to switch back >> to LP. > > That sounds like a significant problem. It says elsewhere, in the > justification for this project, that LP has significant deficiencies > with respect to printer support, usability, and manageability. So > switching back to LP isn't really a viable option. Solaris features need > to work together; you can't ask users to choose between them. (E.g., you > can have Trusted Extensions or modern printing, but not both). > > I'm assuming that there is no inherent reason that CUPS can't support > labeled printing. What discussions have you had with the Trusted > Extensions team to figure out how to add this support? There is no inherent reason why CUPS cannot support labeled printing. Trusted printing support in CUPS is being planned for phase 2 of this project. We have discussed this with members of the TX team, and they are aware of the decision to stick with LP for trusted printing for this phase. Trusted printing in CUPS is, of course, mandatory before we remove LP. This case though is just about changing the install default and not about removing or even adding any feature. >>> I've a few questions (which probably count as not this case) though: >>> >>> 1) Upgrades -- will upgrades (or pkg image-update) switch the >>> service, or leave the existing setting? >> Venky can correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that the >> intention is to enable CUPS on fresh install and honor the prior print >> service selection on image-update. That is correct. >>> I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd like to see use reach the >>> point where we could just ditch the LP system altogether -- its a >>> maintenance headache, and its hard to use. Agree. Removing LP is out of scope for this case, though it goes some way towards making it possible. Cheers, Venky.
