Re: postscript-enabled mozilla package anyone?
Michael B Allen <mba2000@ioplex.com> writes:
> If that works, the maintainer or packager should know most printers
> support 600dpi at this point.
At the cost of breaking printers which don't support it, and still
producing crappy output for 1200dpi printers, which direct Postscript
worked fine on. (Really, why can't xprint just let the Postscript
interpreter render images, since it can do a much better job.)
>I don't see why that's Xprint's fault [1].
Because CUPS has all this information, and Xprint, living in its own
world where BSD lpd is the most advance printing system, requires
that everything tell it all the information you could possibly want
about the printer.
It's also Xprint's fault because it, unlike the "naive" output used
by everything else in the universe except WP8, resamples images, so
it will look worse without significant configuration.
> If it requires additional setup to get a perfect printout then a bug
> report should be filed so that the package maintainer can learn how to
> create a proper deb.
It's not a package maintainer problem. It's an xprint problem. Look
at http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5517 .
> [1] the problem might be that the printing system interface (lpq,
> lpadmin) is not sophisticated enough to communicate information like
> DPI capability.
Or it might be that Xprint currently can't take advantage of this
information.
--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
I heard you had a thought once - but it died of loneliness.
Reply to: