Re: Foomatic-ability for LPR

["Johnny C. Lam" <jlam%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:11:42PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>   [foomatic wants "-j <string>" or "-Z <string>"]
> 
> I don't follow 100% what you meant about OpenBSD's lpr, but if the only
> use of -Z as an argument to a filter is by LPRng and is used in the
> foomatic way, then that indeed sounds like the way to go.

I would prefer if we just passed -Jjobname to the filter.  I see that
OpenBSD made this exact change to their lpd(8) expressly for the
purpose of using foomatic-rip.

> I agree that environment variables are messy.
> 
> Are you proposing to add a new option to printcap to specify the value
> of -Z, so that lpd adds -Z foo to the output filter if the printcap
> entry has oz=foo?  Does this encode the ppd file?  Or do you mean
> something else?
> 
> foomatic claims to autodetect the spooling system.  Is possibly tricking
> it into thinking BSD lpr is LPRng safe?

Foomatic-rip autodetects the spooling system based on examining the
environment variables and the options passed to it.  BSD lpd and LPRng
are treated differently enough within the foomatic-rip script that I
don't think making our lpd look like LPRng is wise.

If we want to do "just enough" to allow NetBSD's lpd to use foomatic-rip,
then adjusting lpd(8) to pass -Jjobname to the filter is enough.

If we want to really allow specifying arbitrary options to the filters
in the way that LPRng allows, then we should just do it our own way
and then teach foomatic-rip about this new "nblpd" variant.

        Cheers,

        -- Johnny C. Lam