Re: [Gimp-print-devel] Recents commits

[Andy T. <th...@ph...>]

Robert L Krawitz wrote:

> This sort of nonsense is confusing everyone.  Someone tried to give me
> a patch to use "lpc status all" rather than "lpc status" because
> that's what his lpc needs.  This needs to be part of the configuration
> process.

I can't quite agree with this. I don't know what's true for other
distributions than my SuSE. All I can say is you can choose between the
bsd-style printing spooler and the plp spooler. To account for the unfortunate

difference in the lpc-syntax there'd have to be shipped two binaries of the
print-plugin if lpc-args are determined at configuration time. Of cource the
choise to activate this paging stuff as default and having it deactivated
optionally was not really ideal in the first place. Nevertheless the binary
has to deal with the differences, IMHO.

If we really don't want to do it the way I've inroduced with my work-around,
we can still consider to supply an environment-variable
PRINT_PLUGIN_LPC_OPTIONS - you name it - which is checked for by the
print-plugin. Although a sort of "Preferences Dialog" would be much more sexy
this solution would do for the time being.

Perhaps we should leave the current track in long distance terms: Instead of
offering all available printers the lpc command gives us we could have a setup

dialog for adding/removing printers. The user can choose an appropriate
description for the printer which will show up in the main printing dialog
(being much more descriptive than /etc/printcap-names) and associates a file
or print-command with it (this way we could also either print to various fixes

filenames or invoke the FileChooser depending on what the user prefers). The
dialog can still support the user by offering installed printers but the
strong dependency from the lpc command would vanish. Of course, this is just
musing and open to discussion, which is most certainly needed ;-)

Andy.