On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Pascal De Vuyst wrote: > For the above reasons hplip-ppd should provide HPLIP PPDs and > foomatic-filters-ppds should not.
HPLIP provides *HP* PPDs. This includes all hpijs ones, and all postscript ones. I am not about to deal with the mess of shipping a different set of PPDs than upstream (I can deal with shipping all, or shipping none). The reason for this is user confusion, which I am wary of increasing. > 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. You'll have to verify if HPLIP is not providing those... If they are supported by HP, it probably does. > Roger Leigh has a good point here. > HPLIP PPDs already use the above Foomatic approach so that's no problem. Only in CVS, I didn't upload the packages not screwing up with the Manufacturer's field yet. > So if PPDs are named e.g. "HP-DeskJet_520-hpijs.ppd.gz" and are located in As I said, there are ppds for other drivers than hpijs, including pure postscript. > 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. It *will* have to be changed upstream if you want to change names. But only the case is weird in HP's case, and that I can deal with. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
