From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <44C4DF12.3030704@easysw.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:54:10 -0400 From: Michael Sweet MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44BFD8AA.8060502@sun.com> <44BFDD7A.6000303@gmail.com> <44BFEAE9.4060703@easysw.com> <44C4C7A0.1000703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44C4C7A0.1000703@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] resend notes from last week List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Till Kamppeter Cc: Wendy Phillips , printing-architecture , "Printing-Sc (E-mail)" Till Kamppeter wrote: > ... > Does this mean that putting a third-party CUPS filter into > /usr/lib/cups/filter/ is no violation of FHS? Technically yes, since they aren't part of the standard printing system. That said, there is a long history of putting drivers (or interface scripts, or filters, etc.) in /usr/share, so it might make sense to add a grandfather clause for this, or make it one of several possible directories - OS vendors put them in /usr/share, other vendors in /opt/printing/share, local drivers in /usr/local/share, etc. > Would then putting a driver and its PPD into the directories > > /usr/share/ppd/// > > and > > /usr/lib/printdrivers/ > > because these directories are a core part of the OS? > > Or do we still need the alternative location /opt/printing/? I'd say to support both - /usr for OS-supplied stuff, /opt and /usr/local for locally-installed stuff. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com Internet Printing and Document Software http://www.easysw.com