To CUPS or not to CUPS
meerkats at bellsouth.net
Thu Jul 10 15:58:27 PDT 2003
On Tuesday 08 July 2003 09:17 am, you wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2003 15:21, Declan. Moriarty wrote:
> CUPS by default (i.e. without foomatic) does not use any drivers built into
> ghostscript except a special "cups" driver. This driver understands special
> PostScript commands for setting resolution, color depth and similar
> settings, that were embedded by pstops. It outputs a raw raster (bitmap is
> the proper word in the Windows world) with a small header specifying the
> resolution, color depth, dimensions of the raster, and other parameters.
> Alexander E. Patrakov
Kind of late on this (sub?)thread, my apoligies.
Very nice explanation (some of it went over my head). I think that what you've
mentioned here, is commonly misunderstood. I.e., that cups does not really
use any of ghostscript's printer drivers. The last time I built espgs, i gave
it a "--with-drivers=" - thereby telling it to not build any drivers - just
as a test. And Cups worked just as before.
By the way, one of the best explanations of the workings of cups (which
correlates very well with yours) I have found is part of (believe it or not)
the Samba docs.
(had to wrap the link- sorry) Only a small part of this doc deals with cups.
I agree that gimp-print or some other driver system should be mentioned in
_any _ cups how-to. Sure cups will work standalone with a PS printer, but the
$100.00 inkjets are way more prolific, and cups - by itself - will not do any
good to those users.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support