Re: Printing woes

Jody,

Thank you for the clarification.  I see the danger of my drawing 
conclusions without first understanding all the facts.

We will review gnome-print, and hence gnumeric, in 6 months or so.

Frank

Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:16:20AM +1000, frank brierley wrote:
> 
>>Limited time has resulted in a focusing of effort within the gnome-print 
>>project towards the integration of cups.  This suggest that while we 
>>don't need gnome to run gnumeric, we do need cups to print.
> 
> 
> That is pretty much the situation.
>  
> 
>>But is this restriction wise?  Might there not be benefits in allowing 
>>choice?
> 
> 
> Don't confuse cause and effect here.  The key here is limited time,
> not a desire to limit choice.
> 
> 
>>I believe it would be a serious mistake for gnome-print to be written to 
>>encapsulate cups exclusively.
> 
> 
> That is a given.  The code is written to abstract the backends.
> Indeed it is possible to do the lookup you'd like.  It's not even
> terribly hard.  I had a look yesterday and figure it could be done
> fairly quickly.  The problem boils down to time.
> 
> 
>>Andreas says "lpr is always assumed to be available to fall back to." If 
>>lpd is to be relied upon when all else fails shouldn't it at least 
>>receive some nominal support?
> 
> 
> It depends on your definition of nominal.  We can send data there,
> but have not had time to add more advanced features like printcap
> parsing.  It would be nice to do it, but to be frank there are lots
> of other things ahead of it on the queue.
> _______________________________________________
> gnumeric-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumeric-list