On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 22:35 +0100, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
I meant discussing them on d-policy, which is the proper ML for those
things. The policy proposal bug is a quite different thing and requires
a previous initial agreement.
Oh. Well, if you say so.
I then propose the following way to handle PPDs (Postscript Printer
Descriptions) in Debian:
* PPD collection packages should be named ppd-<vendor>.
* PPDs in PPD collection packages should be put in
/usr/share/postscript/ppd/<vendor>/.
* A meta package, ppd-all, should depend on all PPD collection
packages.
* Packages which use PPDs should make use of the PPDs in
/usr/share/postscript/ppd. For example, the cupsys package could
simply include a symlink in /usr/share/cups/model/ to
/usr/share/postscript/ppd.
These are just some initial suggestions, and comments are very
welcome.
Francesco also suggested that PPD collection packages should provide a
virtual package. I'm not sure what the point of that is, so maybe he
can explain that instead.
I'm not sure if /usr/share/postscript/ppd is the right directory to
use, one could also imagine simply using /usr/share/ppd since
/usr/share/postscript doesn't seem to be used for anything else.