Re: [Freestandards-ldps] Re: [Fwd: lpr subset standard wanted]
> See the manual pages of the commands (attached, use "bunzip2 <file>;
> man ./<file>" to read them).
I suspect we just want the lpr command. Although the CUPS lpr manpage
does look like a good place to start (-C, -J and -T seem to differ in
meaning somewhat; I'm not sure we want to standardize -r because of
the potential for losing someone's file in a paper jam, as noted in
the LPRng manpage; -o doesn't seem to be supported by LPRng). But
other than that the CUPS options seem to also be available in LPRng.
> CUPS is also compatible to LPD servers when one runs the CUPS-LPD
> mini-daemon. See
Not an LSB or LDPS issue, I don't think.
> I would not recommend, that programs have a hard-coded call of "lpr"
> (as KDE 2)
We might want to recommend that applications give the user the option
of specifying a command (as Netscape does). But we should also
recommend that they default to "lpr", as Netscape does (programs
should be able to print in a simple way without any configuration and
the "lpr" command line is the portable way to do that).
> even direct talking to a running LPD daemon (as LyX).
Heavens no. We don't want to require that an lpd daemon be present
any more than we require that an SMTP daemon be present (the latter
*was* the subject of much discussion).
See
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/spec/command/sendmail.sgml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=lsb
for what we have done vis-a-vis sendmail.
Reply to: