From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-127720-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1R0zrW-0000Ck-Va for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:55:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0307A21C2A7; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.muc.de (colin.muc.de [193.149.48.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B2521C274 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21265 invoked by uid 3782); 6 Sep 2011 17:52:27 -0000 Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951A7AA.dip.t-dialin.net [217.81.167.170]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:52:26 +0200 Received: (qmail 1395 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Sep 2011 17:48:49 -0000 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:48:49 +0000 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild? Message-ID: <20110906174848.GD9867@acm.acm> References: <87ehzuiu1y.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> <CADPrc81MEemnh4Y5fiP7NODm-yqRVfBeHh1AKf07FUWBTSdjwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110906164339.GB9867@acm.acm> <2474748.BxeZ24raHv@pc> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2474748.BxeZ24raHv@pc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7c6269bb2a8509582cd1541035be7b55 Hi, Michael. On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:03:19PM +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011, 16:43:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > > Is that right? How about it being saner to conform to standardised > > interfaces, protocols and formats? > How about IPP? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Printing_Protocol > Oh wait... that's what cups is using. Ah yes, a standard. So we have the choice between all the IPP implementations. That's cups and, ... err - is there another one? But why should I have to use an over the top bloated "Internet" protocol? I've got one single printer on the end of a USB cable. I want a simple spooler, as simple as possible and not simpler. > > No, the sane alternative is to use the `lpr' command, possibly augmented > > by special arguments for particular spoolers, but always having a > > fallback to standard `lpr'. That way, everybody's happy. Even me. ;-) > How about the lpr command provided by cups? > Does it not work for you? I believe it did work for me for the short time I had cups installed. More pertinent is, why won't the lpr command work for LibreOffice? > Michael -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).