[lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"
waldo.bastian at intel.com
Thu Aug 3 13:10:18 PDT 2006
Yes, I think you will need to standardize at least a part of the
ghostscript command line interface to the extent required by the
*FoomaticRIPCommandLine in a PPD file. Does it make sense to use gs
without going through foomatic? If not, foomatic-rip would also be
Linux Client Architect - Client Linux Foundation Technology
Channel Platform Solutions Group
Intel Corporation - http://www.intel.com/go/linux
OSDL DTL Tech Board Chairman
>From: lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.freestandards.org [mailto:lsb-discuss-
>bounces at lists.freestandards.org] On Behalf Of Fujinaka, Todd
>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:23 AM
>To: lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
>Subject: [lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"
>IJS is a transfer protocol for raster page images. Currently it's used
>as a way to get data out of ghostscript. (Ghostscript is basically a
>data converter that takes in Postscript or PDF and outputs various
>formats.) IJS is a standard that developed out of an HP transfer
>protocol for printing, and is used by HP, as well as foomatic and other
>raster printing implementations.
>I'm trying to figure out what "we're adding IJS to the LSB" means
>technically. IJS is currently available on major distros because it's
>implemented in ghostscript, and I can write a test program to make sure
>ghostscript outputs the proper data to an IJS "server". So does that
>mean we're requiring ghostscript? IJS uses pipes and stdin/stdout, so
>there's no way to query a server for a generic implementation.
>I'm thinking opvp is in the same boat.
>My only suggestion is that I write a test that exercises ghostscript to
>make sure it can handle ijs and opvp output, and would like to hear if
>that's a valid solution.
>lsb-discuss mailing list
>lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
More information about the lsb-discuss