Closed
Bug 270025
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
[ps] Detect native AIX print queues
Categories
(Core :: Printing: Output, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: pkwarren, Unassigned)
Details
Attachments
(1 obsolete file)
Recently, support was added to Mozilla to detect CUPS print queues. I would like to add similar support for detecting AIX print queues which are defined in the AIX /etc/qconfig configuration file.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166021 -
Flags: review?(kherron+mozilla)
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 166021 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 >+/** >+ * This reads the list of configured print queues on an AIX system by >+ * parsing the /etc/qconfig file, which is in stanza format. All stanzas >+ * with a device attribute are print queues. >+ * >+ * Returns PR_TRUE if printers were found, PR_FALSE otherwise. >+ */ >+PRBool >+ReadAIXPrinters(nsCStringArray& aList) >+{ >+ FILE *fp = fopen("/etc/qconfig", "r"); To start with, this function should be declared static. And it'd be useful to include some example text from /etc/qconfig or a description of the important lines, in case someone ever has to rewrite any of this code. >+ if (name.EqualsLiteral("device") && !value.IsEmpty()) { >+ nsCAutoString fullName(NS_POSTSCRIPT_DRIVER_NAME); >+ fullName.Append(queue); I'm not sure I like the idea of tagging these with "PostScript". At a minimum, if the user specified a printer list through the environment variable or the pref, then we could end up with the exact same printer listed twice. This is likely to be reported as a bug. I've been thinking about how to support lpr/lp printers with autodetection. The scheme I have in mind for them is to add each printer as "LPR/printername" or "LP/printername". This way, if the user sees "CUPS/foo", "LPR/foo", and "PostScript/foo" he's more likely to understand what is going on. Furthermore, we could handle these printers differently. If we know a printer is an lpr printer, we could construct an lpr command for it instead of just running an opaque command. Even if you don't want to develop an aix-specific print job class, tagging these printers differently would make it clearer to the user where they came from. If you'd rather continue tagging these printers as PostScript, then this logic should be integrated with the existing logic for MOZILLA_POSTSCRIPT_PRINTER_LIST and the pref print.printer_list. Finally, as a matter of policy I'm not sure we want to remove PostScript/default at this point. The user may have an existing setup with a non-default command configured, such as piping the print job into kprinter. More generally there should always be a printer in the list with a submission command the user can edit. I realize the printers from qconfig would have that property here, but I'm thinking of the design policy.
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > To start with, this function should be declared static. And it'd be useful to > include some example text from /etc/qconfig or a description of the important > lines, in case someone ever has to rewrite any of this code. Ok - I will do both of these. > I'm not sure I like the idea of tagging these with "PostScript". At a minimum, > if the user specified a printer list through the environment variable or the > pref, then we could end up with the exact same printer listed twice. This is > likely to be reported as a bug. I think I'd prefer to keep them listed as "PostScript" as long as they don't have any special properties which differentiate the queues from any other queues we use on the system. I think if a user sees both LPR/queue and PostScript/queue, I don't think they would know how they differ from one another. > If you'd rather continue tagging these printers as PostScript, then this logic > should be integrated with the existing logic for > MOZILLA_POSTSCRIPT_PRINTER_LIST and the pref print.printer_list. Ok - good point. > Finally, as a matter of policy I'm not sure we want to remove > PostScript/default at this point. The user may have an existing setup with a > non-default command configured, such as piping the print job into kprinter. > More generally there should always be a printer in the list with a submission > command the user can edit. I realize the printers from qconfig would have that > property here, but I'm thinking of the design policy. For me, having the PostScript/default queue is quite confusing, especially if one of the printers set up on the system is already designated the default queue. If you look at the printer dialog on Windows for example, the only items listed are the printers set up on the system. Would having a non-default print command break if the printer name is a real queue instead of 'default'?
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166021 -
Flags: review?(kherron+mozilla)
Reporter | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #166021 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3) > For me, having the PostScript/default queue is quite confusing, especially if > one of the printers set up on the system is already designated the default > queue. If you look at the printer dialog on Windows for example, the only items > listed are the printers set up on the system. Would having a non-default print > command break if the printer name is a real queue instead of 'default'? Phil, Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. As far as I know, the only practical issue with leaving PostScript/default out of the printer list is that the user may have set a special print command for that destination and may be unhappy that it's no longer available. We could try it your way and see if anyone complains.
Reporter | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Assignee: pkwarren → rupeshkt
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Updated•15 years ago
|
QA Contact: printing
Comment 5•2 years ago
|
||
The bug assignee didn't login in Bugzilla in the last 7 months.
:jwatt, could you have a look please?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
Assignee: rupeshkt → nobody
Flags: needinfo?(jwatt)
Comment 6•2 years ago
|
||
There is no more AIX Mozilla as far as I know.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(jwatt)
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•