[Printing-summit] [lsb-discuss] Printer/driver testing andcertification

Klaus Singvogel kssingvo at suse.de
Tue Aug 22 10:05:04 PDT 2006

Till Kamppeter wrote:
> Johannes Meixner wrote:
> Nothing should be overwritten, also it is not a good idea to have
> different foomatic-rip versions on the same system. My suggestion is to
> add foomatic-rip as a requirement of LSB 3.2, as every distribution
> ships it.

foomatic-rip is not mandatory for systems with PostScript printers
(and a few others). Vendors, which want to build up a small distro,
can only longer be LSB compliant, if they don't have foomatic-rip
because of missing necessity.

I don't think it's a mandatory requirement to have foomatic-rip in
every distribution, only a "might have" or "should have".

Reminds me to vote for a enhancement on foomatic-rip:
"foomatic --version" or "foomatic-rip --help" should print out the
current version. Then it could be better

Till, main author of foomatic-rip, what do you think about adding this?

> Having standard option names would be a good idea. Then an automatic
> test only needs to look for these and go through their choices.

Good idea.

But please only with an open set, where hardware vendors can add their
special papers (like size Din A00), and special options. But the most
common ones should be reduced to a fix set.

Klaus Singvogel
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5                     E-Mail: Klaus.Singvogel at SuSE.de
90409 Nuernberg                   Phone: +49 (0) 911 740530
Germany                           GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D  1994-06-27

More information about the Printing-summit mailing list