Re: [Gimp-print-devel] Recents commits

[Robert L K. <rl...@al...>]

   Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:46:02 +0100
   From: Andy Thaller <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.

Actually, that's a good point.  It is appropriate for the binary to
deal with it.  I wasn't thinking too clearly, and reacted out of annoyance.

   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 ;-)

I'd actually prefer something like this for other reasons, anyway --
this would allow someone to define "virtual" printers that are really
just sets of options.  So someone could define a "printer" that has
settings appropriate for highest quality printing, another one for
quick and dirty proofing, others for various groups of settings known
to work for particular images...

-- 
Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...>      http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lp...@uu...
Project lead for The Gimp Print --  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton