Bug#347264: Incorrect *Manufacturer string
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are we going to remove all HP PPDs from all other PPD-installing packages
in Debian, including the crap that comes with cupsys by default, and the
ones in foomatic* ?
Currently both foomatic-filters-ppds and hplip provide exactly the same
PPDs for hpijs binary drivers from hplip project. When both packages are
installed this results in duplicate entries in GUI tools like gnome-cups-add.
Hplip xml data to generate hplip PPDs is not maintained in foomatic-db at
linuxprinting.org but in hplip project.
Also hplip PPDs should always match with the installed version of hpijs
binary drivers because new versions of binary drivers can provide new
possibilities.
For the above reasons hplip-ppd should provide HPLIP PPDs and
foomatic-filters-ppds should not.
I will file a bug report against foomatic-filters-ppds for this.
We should not remove all HP PPDs from packages providing PPDs since there
are other binary gs drivers (e.g. pcl3) for use with HP printers where PPDs
are provided by foomatic-filter-ppds.
Roger Leigh wrote:
An alternate approach, used by Foomatic and Gutenprint, is to put the
driver name after the model:
$ zgrep Nick /usr/share/cups/model/foomatic-ppds/HP/HP-LaserJet_1320-hpijs.ppd.gz
*ShortNickName: "HP LaserJet 1320 hpijs"
*NickName: "HP LaserJet 1320 Foomatic/hpijs"
This neatly avoids cluttering up the Manufacturer, and as a nice
bonus, all of the drivers for the same model sort together in the
list, to it's easier for users to find the right driver.
Roger Leigh has a good point here.
HPLIP PPDs already use the above Foomatic approach so that's no problem.
I will do so, then.
However, the other parts of the PPD spec for Debian will not be followed by
hplip until all other issues are fixed, i.e. I will still ship the PPDs in a
hplip/ subdir off the toplevel PPD directory for now, and that contains
hpijs PPDs mixed with "pure" postscript PPDs.
Currently there are no HPIJS drivers for HP printers that are not provided by
the hplip project and I don't think there will be ever.
So if PPDs are named e.g. "HP-DeskJet_520-hpijs.ppd.gz" and are located in
"/usr/share/ppd/gs/HP" I don't see any possibility of names clashing with other
packages.
OK. There are still some details to work out in the spec, so I'll
also be holding off that until we are all happy with it, and it's also
had a wider review.
I'm open to constructive comments and suggestions.
Is it desireable to forecefully case-normalize the PPD filenames? HP uses
basically the "toss a coin" way of selecting which case they use on these
things, and linuxprinting.org did not fix it upon acceptance of the PPDs.
I don't have an opinion either way here; it's your call. In most
cases the file will not be accessed by the user directly. The
Gutenprint PPDs are lower case, but use the driver name, so might be
confusing to some; the Foomatic ones are not, and might be a bit more
readable. If in doubt, I would do whatever upstream are doing.
You are right that linuxprinting.org naming convention is not followed for
real PPDs in foomatic-db.
I think Debian should lead the way here by providing unified naming for PPDs
which opens possibilities for GUI tools that are currently not possible.
Perhaps a bug should be filed against foomatic-db to get this changed upstream.
Regards,
Pascal De Vuyst
Reply to: