On Wednesday 07 July 2004 8:45 pm, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> Well I believe that xprint outputs postscript. It just does it in a
> different way. I believe is xprint is like an x server. Mozilla or
> whatever program sends it whatever you want to print as a series of
> x-thingamabobs and it converts
On Thursday 08 July 2004 1:25 am, Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> Nope. I just installed all the build-depends packages required to build
> it and then built the package after adjusting the rules file to sort out
> postscript and xprint.
>
> It was only afterwards that I noticed that previously I'd had
On (07/07/04 13:23), Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:06:00PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> > I presume these are i386 debs only ;( - I'm on ppc but thanks anyway ;)
>
> Oh yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that :P
>
> I can do sparc packages too, if anyone needs them (might tak
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:28:12PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
> Did you build them with xft?
Nope. I just installed all the build-depends packages required to build
it and then built the package after adjusting the rules file to sort out
postscript and xprint.
It was only afterwards that I noticed t
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:58:13 -0700
Jim McCloskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |> I know this won't help you much now, but in the future, you can
> |> find where config files are by trying "dpkg -L packagename | grep
> |> etc" (since all Debian packages pu
Brad Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I actually have a postscript printer, and would like to continue to use it.
> However, I guess I need to throw my laserjet out now that uber-devel got a
> bug up his butt. (How it got past his head is beyond me.)
Well I believe that xprint outputs postscri
"Jacob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> I know this won't help you much now, but in the future, you can
|> find where config files are by trying "dpkg -L packagename | grep
|> etc" (since all Debian packages put the config files _somewhere_ in
|> /etc).
Thank you for this. In fact, though, that
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 4:58 am, Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> If anyone needs mozilla 1.7 debs with postscript re-enabled and
> xprint removed, I've just built some here:
>
> deb http://apt.leapster.org sid mozilla
Did you build them with xft?
--
Cow-orker> "But can you see where I'm coming from
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 12:36 am, Michael B Allen wrote:
> Right the choices are A) not print, B) downgrade or C) install
> xprt-xprintorg. Personally I think people should try C before bitching too
> much.
Actually I and quite a few people tried C), and it didn't
work properly when it even work
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 o
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:28:48 -0700
Jim McCloskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |> Right the choices are A) not print, B) downgrade or C) install
> |> xprt-xprintorg. Personally I think people should try C before
> |> bitching too much.
>
> Option C) .
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004, Michael B Allen wrote:
> *default-printer-resolution: 600
This mean, of course, that we need to get xprt-xprintorg to *directly*
inteface to CUPS properly, to get that information (and other supported
spooling systems that can provide such info). And that requires the ability
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:06:00PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> I presume these are i386 debs only ;( - I'm on ppc but thanks anyway ;)
Oh yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that :P
I can do sparc packages too, if anyone needs them (might take a while,
our boxes are slooow), but I don't have access
On (07/07/04 11:58), Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> If anyone needs mozilla 1.7 debs with postscript re-enabled and
> xprint removed, I've just built some here:
>
> deb http://apt.leapster.org sid mozilla
>
> I'll be doing firefox sometime later today, too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
Hi Paul
I presume t
If anyone needs mozilla 1.7 debs with postscript re-enabled and
xprint removed, I've just built some here:
deb http://apt.leapster.org sid mozilla
I'll be doing firefox sometime later today, too.
Cheers,
Paul.
--
Paul Dwerryhouse| PGP Key ID:
Maybe it's just me: if Mozilla and its children require Xprint, why
isn't it a dependency? (I know, because no one actually *needs* to
print.)
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:28:48 -0700
Jim McCloskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |> Right the choices are A) not print, B) downgrade or C) install
> |> xprt-xprintorg. Personally I think people should try C before
> |> bitching too much.
>
> Option C) w
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:51:47 +0200
Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Xprint output is a solid 100% better than PostScript/default. But then
> > I haven't tried it in a while.
>
> I installed it on my CUPS-running system. The result is a printout in
> max 100 dpi on all of my 6 la
Michael B Allen wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:07:13 +0200
Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What a brillant idea to disable the postscript printing facility
entirely and to "replace" it with a tool whose zillions of text file
config options
Sounds like a packaging problem to me. La
Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> If xprint is broken, that's bad. However...
>
> } configuring xprint seems to be a major project/hack.
>
> ...I installed xprt-xprintorg with no difficulty. I then attempted to
> print an
Michael B Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Right the choices are A) not print, B) downgrade or C) install
|> xprt-xprintorg. Personally I think people should try C before
|> bitching too much.
Option C) was the one that I tried, and I've had all the problems
reported here. First no printing at
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:37:31 -0400
Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I installed xprt-xprintorg with no difficulty. I then attempted to
> print and, with absolutely no configuration on my part, it happily found
> my CUPS printers.
That's right. Setting up printing via CUPS, lprng, or
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:07:13 +0200
Thomas Winischhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a brillant idea to disable the postscript printing facility
> entirely and to "replace" it with a tool whose zillions of text file
> config options
Sounds like a packaging problem to me. Last I tried instal
Travis Crump wrote:
I tried it out, and it printed out 1/4 size in the top left quarter of
the page. Hmm, that's not good. So I opened up print properties and
noticed that the paper size was set to something wierd instead of
/etc/papersize. And all the paper sizes were in mm for some reason,
Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
} On (06/07/04 17:26), Brad Sims wrote:
} > On Tuesday 06 July 2004 1:07 pm, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
} > > Since I am not willing to configure my printers a third time with that
} > > crappy Xprint stuff (why
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 7:07 pm, Clive Menzies wrote:
> Well, from my own experience, downgrading to an older version has
> brought back my printing within minutes after struggling with xprint for
> several days
As was my experience.
--
atheism is only a religion the way absolute zero is a tempe
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 5:39 pm, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Actually, it looks like only the Debian package has dropped support
> for it. And that only at the request of one person, who is the same
> person who closed your bug.
Why am I not surprised?
While I realize that /is/ his prerogative, WTF co
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:40:07 +0200, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>
> } > As it now stands your choices are A) not print or B) downgrade to
> } > a version that predates the brain damage.
> [...]
>
> This is just FUD.
No, it's not. See bugs 252362, 235592, 254704, 256850, etc.
Reid
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:37:31 -0400
Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If xprint is broken, that's bad. However...
>
> [...]
> } configuring xprint seems to be a major project/hack.
> [...]
>
> ...I installed xprt-xprintorg with no difficulty. I then attempted to
> print and, with absol
On (06/07/04 19:37), Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> } On (06/07/04 17:26), Brad Sims wrote:
> } > On Tuesday 06 July 2004 1:07 pm, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> } > > Since I am not willing to configure my printers a third time with that
>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
} On (06/07/04 17:26), Brad Sims wrote:
} > On Tuesday 06 July 2004 1:07 pm, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
} > > Since I am not willing to configure my printers a third time with that
} > > crappy Xprint stuff (why the heck do we have CUP
On (06/07/04 17:26), Brad Sims wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 July 2004 1:07 pm, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> > Since I am not willing to configure my printers a third time with that
> > crappy Xprint stuff (why the heck do we have CUPS including easy setup,
> > PPD support, KDE/GNOME integration, etc et
Brad Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mozilla has dropped support for direct printing;
Actually, it looks like only the Debian package has dropped support
for it. And that only at the request of one person, who is the same
person who closed your bug.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I a
On Tuesday 06 July 2004 1:07 pm, Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> Since I am not willing to configure my printers a third time with that
> crappy Xprint stuff (why the heck do we have CUPS including easy setup,
> PPD support, KDE/GNOME integration, etc etc etc etc), does anyone
> provide postscript-
34 matches
Mail list logo
