Re: libcupsfilters: mupdf not "Required"

Am 06.12.25 um 21:40 schrieb Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via
blfs-dev Mailing List):
> On 12/6/25 10:31 AM, Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing
> List) wrote:
>> Am 06.12.25 um 17:09 schrieb Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev
>> Mailing List):
>>> Mupdf is labeled as "Required" for libcupsfilters.  However,
>>> libcupsfilters-2.1.1 can be built without mupdf, using the config-option
>>>
>>>     --disable-mutool
>>>
>>> I just did so and the build was fine, including the tests.
>>>
>>> So I suggest do downgrade mupdf to "Recommended" or perhaps even
>>> "Optional" for libcupsfilters.
>>
>> This seems to go even further as there is also
>>
>>     --disable-ghostscript
>>
>> as a config-option.  So it seems to me that ghostscript can/should also
>> be downgraded, like mupdf.
>>
>> Here's part of the build-log, building without both, ghostscript and
>> mupdf:
>> [...]
>> Build configuration:
>>          libcups:         2.4.15
>>          cups-config:     system
>>          poppler:         yes
>>          ghostscript:     no
>>          gs-path:
>>          mutool:          no
>>          mutool-path:
>>          ippfind-path:    system
>>          imagefilters:    yes
>>          jpeg:            yes
>>          exif:            yes
>>          png:             yes
>>          tiff:            yes
>>          dbus:            yes
>>          werror:          no
>>          test-font:       /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf
> 
> I like that, but to decide whether to make them recommended or optional,
> I'm wondering what they do for libcupsfilters.
> 
> We do say ghostscript OR mupdf.  I'm guessing they convert to a pdf
> instead of the default ps format.
It seems to be the other way round: they convert a pdf to ps.

> 
> Perhaps one of them is needed to just output to a pdf file.
I was in the midst of testing when a just one year old Seagate IronWolf
began to die, which forced me to rearrange priorities.

But according to what I had found out that far, having at least one of
them is necessary to be able to print pdf-files with a non-postscript
printer.  That was confirmed by initial testing after having
configured/built libcupsfilters-2.1.1 *and* cups-filters-2.0.1 with
--disable-mutool	    \
--disable-ghostscript	    \

"Printing to pdf" was still OK with Thunderbird/Firefox, as was printing
text from LO-Writer and Kate.  But printing a pdf from Okular with a
non-postscript printer was not, nothing was even sent to the printer.

This seems in line with what's in
/usr/share/doc/libcupsfilters-2.1.1/INSTALL.md:

[...]
### Additional Binaries for Non-PDF Printers
- Ghostscript 10.01.1 or higher (with specific output devices support)
or
- MuPDF (version 1.15 or higher)
[...]

And the README.md in /usr/share/doc/cups-filters-2.0.1/ says:

[...] It is highly recommended, especially if non-PDF printers are used,
to have at least one of Ghostscript (preferred), Poppler, or MuPDF
installed.
[...]

I'm not sure what they mean by "PDF-printer". But perhaps a
postscript-printer.

I was about to test a build with only "--disable-mutool" (so that only
ghostscript would be used) when the problem with the Seagate surfaced.

Anyway - neither Ghostscript nor MuPDF strictly match BLFS' definition
of "Required" for building libcupsfilters/cups-filters as the latter can
be built without them, using the corresponding config-options.  But as
they seem to be necessary for printing pdf-files with the majority of
printers, I suggest to demote them to "Recommended", perhaps with a
short explanation, so that users understand that they really want to
have at least one of them.

But this is not an urgent matter and perhaps you may allow me more time
for final testing once I have that Seagate-problem solved.  Such things
always happen when you need them least.  Thanks.


Rainer

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page