Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are we going to remove all HP PPDs from all other PPD-installing packages in Debian, including the crap that comes with cupsys by default, and the ones in foomatic* ?
Currently both foomatic-filters-ppds and hplip provide exactly the same PPDs for hpijs binary drivers from hplip project. When both packages are installed this results in duplicate entries in GUI tools like gnome-cups-add. Hplip xml data to generate hplip PPDs is not maintained in foomatic-db at linuxprinting.org but in hplip project. Also hplip PPDs should always match with the installed version of hpijs binary drivers because new versions of binary drivers can provide new possibilities. For the above reasons hplip-ppd should provide HPLIP PPDs and foomatic-filters-ppds should not. I will file a bug report against foomatic-filters-ppds for this. We should not remove all HP PPDs from packages providing PPDs since there are other binary gs drivers (e.g. pcl3) for use with HP printers where PPDs are provided by foomatic-filter-ppds. Roger Leigh wrote:
An alternate approach, used by Foomatic and Gutenprint, is to put the driver name after the model:
$ zgrep Nick /usr/share/cups/model/foomatic-ppds/HP/HP-LaserJet_1320-hpijs.ppd.gz *ShortNickName: "HP LaserJet 1320 hpijs" *NickName: "HP LaserJet 1320 Foomatic/hpijs"
This neatly avoids cluttering up the Manufacturer, and as a nice bonus, all of the drivers for the same model sort together in the list, to it's easier for users to find the right driver.
Roger Leigh has a good point here. HPLIP PPDs already use the above Foomatic approach so that's no problem.
I will do so, then.
However, the other parts of the PPD spec for Debian will not be followed by hplip until all other issues are fixed, i.e. I will still ship the PPDs in a hplip/ subdir off the toplevel PPD directory for now, and that contains hpijs PPDs mixed with "pure" postscript PPDs.
Currently there are no HPIJS drivers for HP printers that are not provided by the hplip project and I don't think there will be ever. So if PPDs are named e.g. "HP-DeskJet_520-hpijs.ppd.gz" and are located in "/usr/share/ppd/gs/HP" I don't see any possibility of names clashing with other packages.
OK. There are still some details to work out in the spec, so I'll also be holding off that until we are all happy with it, and it's also had a wider review.
I'm open to constructive comments and suggestions.
Is it desireable to forecefully case-normalize the PPD filenames? HP uses basically the "toss a coin" way of selecting which case they use on these things, and linuxprinting.org did not fix it upon acceptance of the PPDs.
I don't have an opinion either way here; it's your call. In most cases the file will not be accessed by the user directly. The Gutenprint PPDs are lower case, but use the driver name, so might be confusing to some; the Foomatic ones are not, and might be a bit more readable. If in doubt, I would do whatever upstream are doing.
You are right that linuxprinting.org naming convention is not followed for real PPDs in foomatic-db. I think Debian should lead the way here by providing unified naming for PPDs which opens possibilities for GUI tools that are currently not possible. Perhaps a bug should be filed against foomatic-db to get this changed upstream. Regards, Pascal De Vuyst -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
