[Pkg-hpijs-devel] Bug#649991: Bug#649991: Please rename the hplip packages to the printer-driver- convention

[Didier Raboud]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:16:15 +0100, Till Kamppeter wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> The patch is not complete. The "hplip-data" binary package contains
> the PPD files for HP's PostScript printers, so the "hplip" package is
> also a printer driver. The PPD updater is in "hplip" (a packaging
> bug).

Hi,

I based my patch on the summary I did both there [0] and when filing 
the bug [1], both which didn't get reactions.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-printing/2011/11/msg00017.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-printing/2011/11/msg00050.html

My main question is "does hplip serve as printer driver for CUPS?", as 
the main reasoning behind the printer-driver-* naming scheme is to have 
them all installed in a standard installation involving cups.

(As a side note, I think we'll end up having two classes of 
printer-driver-* packages: the ones installed trough recommends and the 
ones only suggested by printer-driver-all, but that's yet to be 
discussed.)

> So there should be a new binary package named
> "printer-driver-hp-postscript", containing these PPDs (current file
> /usr/lib/cups/driver/hplip, should then be
> /usr/lib/cups/driver/hp-postscript) and the corresponding PPD 
> updater.

Sounds sane,

> The "hpijs-ppds" package is not needed by CUPS as CUPS auto-generates
> the PPDs based on the .drv file in the "hpijs" binary package.
> "hpijs-ppds" is only needed for non-CUPS spoolers which cannot cope
> with a .drv file. WDYT, should "hpijs-ppds" also be renamed to
> "printer-driver-..."? Should it keep its name? Or should it get
> dropped?

Certainly not printer-driver-*, and I don't see a value in dropping it, 
hence let's keep it as is.

Cheers,

OdyX

P.S. Do you want me to provide a new patch or will you work on it (I 
don't mind preparing it, just say.)?