Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If that works, the maintainer or packager should know most printers > support 600dpi at this point.
At the cost of breaking printers which don't support it, and still producing crappy output for 1200dpi printers, which direct Postscript worked fine on. (Really, why can't xprint just let the Postscript interpreter render images, since it can do a much better job.) >I don't see why that's Xprint's fault [1]. Because CUPS has all this information, and Xprint, living in its own world where BSD lpd is the most advance printing system, requires that everything tell it all the information you could possibly want about the printer. It's also Xprint's fault because it, unlike the "naive" output used by everything else in the universe except WP8, resamples images, so it will look worse without significant configuration. > If it requires additional setup to get a perfect printout then a bug > report should be filed so that the package maintainer can learn how to > create a proper deb. It's not a package maintainer problem. It's an xprint problem. Look at http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5517 . > [1] the problem might be that the printing system interface (lpq, > lpadmin) is not sophisticated enough to communicate information like > DPI capability. Or it might be that Xprint currently can't take advantage of this information. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks. I heard you had a thought once - but it died of loneliness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
