[lsb-discuss] LSB 4.0 and printing

Johannes Meixner jsmeix at suse.de
Fri Mar 28 03:04:56 PDT 2008


Hello,

On Mar 27 17:55 Klaus Singvogel wrote
[whether or not it may make sense or not
 to have scanning software on a server]

All I wanted to point out is that running scanner drivers
on a server can be done and can make sense.

I never said that running scanner drivers on a server
is the usual way to access a scanner.

But perhaps some admins may like to install the driver
only once on a central machine so that all client systems
can be equal and must not be changed regardless which
actual scanner hardware there is (see my last mail).
It is just like having the printer driver installed only
on the server instead of the Windows-like nonsense to have
drivers installed and maintained on any client workstation.

Assume a user decided to buy a device with the currently
best available Linux support: A HP all-on-one network device.
Of course printing is done as usual via the server.
But the scanner driver must run on each workstation?
Why this inconsistency?
Why not simply install and run HPLIP only on the server?

Of course a big-and-fat all-in-one printer-scanner-copier
does not require any scanner driver at all (the device has
a scanning user frontend and the scanned image is sent
usually via mail to the user's mail account) but perhaps
not all users like to spend so much money?


Additionally I pointed out that there is a difference
between a LSB compliant distribution
and a particular LSB compliant system installation.

For me it seems that LSB standard issues get mixed up here
with what particular users like to have as their own particular
system installation.

Therefore some questions:

What would be the difference for the Linux distributions
if SANE1 is in "desktop" or not
and
what would be the difference for individual users
if SANE1 is in "desktop" or not?

I do not mind if SANE1 is in "desktop" or not.
I am happy as long as SANE1 becomes somehow a LSB standard.
I just do not understand what the difference is.

For example I do not understand when there is only
one "lsb" package which pulls in the "whole LSB",
how one can have a LSB compliant server installation
without getting also SANE1 stuff installed?

Perhaps the root problem is whether there is only one "lsb"
package or a more fine-grained package selection like

lsb:
installs the whole LSB stuff
(to be backward compatible)

lsb-desktop:
installs what LSB thinks is good for a desktop
(e.g. includes lsb-printing and lsb-scanning)

lsb-server:
installs what LSB thinks is good for a server
(e.g. includes lsb-printing but not lsb-scanning)

lsb-printing:
installs the LSB printing stuff
(includes at least lsb-core)

lsb-scanning:
installs the LSB scanning stuff
(includes at least lsb-core)

lsb-core:
minimum LSB stuff
(perhaps not useful alone but needed to define the base set)

Of course such a fine-grained lsb package selection
would also have to be defined by a LSB standard so that
LSB compliant third party applications can rely on
what each "lsb-*" package exactly pulls in.


Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany
AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF: Markus Rex



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list