[lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"

Fujinaka, Todd todd.fujinaka at intel.com
Thu Aug 3 14:44:02 PDT 2006

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wichmann, Mats D
>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:26 PM
>To: Fujinaka, Todd; Petrie, Glen; lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
>Subject: RE: [lsb-discuss] Questions on standardizing "IJS"
>>How do I test a wire protocol? I need one end or the other of IJS
>>implemented in the OS or I'll end up writing both ends and just
>>to myself that pipes work, right? I think I need some sort of
>We do have some other cases where we need "the other end"
>in order to do meaningful testing, but the server in question
>is not part of the LSB itself.  This happens specifically
>with the tests that need an X server running in order to
>meaningfully test the library interfaces that *are* in the
>spec, and so we start Xvfb to accomondate that, *but* have
>to be really careful that bugs in Xvfb don't "count against"
>someone trying to certify.  Is that a useful parallel? You
>do need some sort of implementation for certain tests, yes.

The answer to the "Is it in the major distros" question for IJS and opvp
is, "Yes, it's included in the version of ghostscript that's shipping
with the major distros." (For some given value of "major distros.") So
it's not quite a parallel; IJS and opvp need ghostscript at this time,
afaik. We could test the other end of IJS, but every program I can think
of (and that's just gutenprint and hpijs, really) uses ghostscript to
feed into their IJS "server".

Is there any objection to testing just a piece of ghostscript? Also, I
can't imagine ghostscript is too large for a distro, since we're talking
about printing and desktop in this iteration of LSB.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list