[lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"

Till Kamppeter till.kamppeter at gmail.com
Thu Aug 3 13:48:06 PDT 2006

Bastian, Waldo wrote:
> 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
> required.

Standardizing on GhostScript and foomatic-rip in LSB 3.2 is no problem,
as they are part of all major distros.

Also there is no other program yet providing the driver interfaces and
if there had been one, it would need its own appropriately adapted PPD
files. Foomatic PPDs for example contain the explicit GhostScript
command line (directive "*FoomaticRIPCommandLine:"). So it makes also
sense to require GhostScript in an LSB standard.

One can use GhostScript without foomatic-rip, but then the driver
supplier would have to write his own filter script and perhaps even
different ones for the different printing environments CUPS, Solaris LP,
BSD LPD, ... Many driver suppliers simply use foomatic-rip. So requiring
foomatic-rip in an LSB standard would make the live easier for driver
suppliers (and they do not all ship foomatic-rip on their own).


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list