[Printing-architecture] Moving CUPS filters to OpenPrinting

Petrie, Glen glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com
Fri Oct 28 14:57:40 UTC 2011

There may be some confusion on my comments at the end of my last email.
The "dropped filters" are not the one's CUPS will drop but the one Till
would like to drop.  After reviewing the web site again, I see the
number of filters may be small overall; so it now becomes of question if
Till (or others helping Till) have sufficient time to maintain the
filters.  Perhaps Till should make the decision, since it will more
directly affects him.







From: printing-architecture-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org
[mailto:printing-architecture-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org] On
Behalf Of Petrie, Glen
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:45 AM
To: Daniel Dressler; Till Kamppeter
Cc: Open Printing
Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] Moving CUPS filters to OpenPrinting




I agree with Daniel comment on foomatic-*


While "openprinting-cups-filters" is descriptive; wouldn't
"op-cups-filters" be sufficient?


For the "other name" discussion, I am not sure they are really "common";
they are really just the set supported by OpenPrinting.   You say are
""""extra"""" or """"extended"""". 


Some other ideas

CEFS = CUPS Extended Filter Set

OCFS = OpenPrinting CUPS Filter Set 

COFS= CUPS OpenPrinting Filter Set

         = Common OpenPrinting Filter Set


But I am ok with "op-cups-filters"


For the discussion of "dropping filters" -

1.  Is the intent is stop supporting?  If so, then there should one
filter set that contains all of "abandoned" filters.  At least someone
would have access to the filter; even though reasonability for ensuring
the work with the latest CUPS is up to the person downloading this set
of filters and not any other entity.

2.  How many filters would suggest dropping?  If the number is small (<
10 say), then the burden to continue to support them may be low;
however, if the larger, can a list be generated of the suggested filters
to be dropped.  The list is then distributed on printing email lists, so
that people can provide a feedback on the candidate filters to be




From: printing-architecture-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org
[mailto:printing-architecture-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Dressler
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Till Kamppeter
Cc: Open Printing
Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] Moving CUPS filters to OpenPrinting



I think we should keep foomatic-* as is, if only to avoid user

Overall openprinting-cups-filters is a good name and can be extended to
an optional package easily, e.g. openprinting-cups-filters-extra, cannot
really go wrong with it.

The only downsides I can think of is that it is verbose and just a bit,

There is another source of options, in line with CUPS, CPD, CMPD we
could call it CFS* ( Common Filter Set ) or CPF ( Common Printing
Filters ) or CCUPSFS (Common Common Unix Printing Spooler Filter Set).

But perhaps my favourite: CUFS ( Common Unix Filter Set), it may not
mention the cups specific nature of the filters but what we lose in
description we make up for in branding, it is a pronounceable word!**


*Already taken =\
**In English at least.

2011/10/27 Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter at gmail.com>


Mike Sweet intends to remove the filters which are not used by Mac OS X
from the CUPS upstream package:


We have agreed on this on the last OpenPrinting Summit and the filters
will be continued and hosted by OpenPrinting. In addition, the filters
for the PDF printing workflow will not be adopted by CUPS but joined
with the CUPS filters we overtake.

All Linux distributions would have to include this new CUPS filters
package then to get CUPS continuing to work and have the same feature
set as before.

Due to the fact that this package will use the PDF workflow by default
and that all major desktop applications send their print jobs already in
PDF, this will complete the implementation of PDF as standard print job
format. See also my updated web page:


By this, we also do not need to get a copyright/license agreement
between the developers of the PDF filters and Apple.

We can start hosting the CUPS filters as soon as our BZR repositories
for OpenPrinting will be back. In the CUPS project these filters are
already separated into their own branch, we only need to import them
from their SVN into our BZR.

We also need a name for the package. Should we call it simply
"cups-filters"? Or "op-cups-filters"? Or do we rename Foomatic to
openprinting and have the packages

- openprinting-db
- openprinting-db-nonfree
- openprinting-db-engine
- openprinting-rip
- openprinting-cups-filters

Note that we keep foomatic-rip/openprinting-rip separate from the CUPS
filters as this filter is a universal filter which also works with many
other printing systems.

Another decision to make is whether we really should maintain all the
filters which get over to us from CUPS or whether we should discontinue
some. The filter set will contain "imageto..." and "textto..." filters
which are not made use of by the usual desktop applications, they send
all PDF (and some send PostScript). Alternatively, these filters could
be made optional.

Printing-architecture mailing list
Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/printing-architecture/attachments/20111028/ac956a48/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Printing-architecture mailing list