From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4C4D78FF.30302@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:01:03 +0200 From: Till Kamppeter MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] To unite "Automatic Download/Installation" mechanism. List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: kota.seki@avasys.jp Cc: printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org, twaugh@redhat.com, jsmeix@novell.com On 07/26/2010 09:44 AM, kota.seki@avasys.jp wrote: > Hi All. > > This is my first mail to you. > I work for AVASYS Corporation. > > Now we try to realize "Automatic Download/Installation". > > We build printer driver using LSB. > We've uploaded XML file and link to repository to OpenPrinting DB, and We > public driver's repository. > And now we are checking "Automatic Download/Installation" possible or not. > > But we have problems about this. > OpenPrinting proposed a mechanism about "Automatic Download/Installation". > > In Ubuntu 10.04, it has some bugs but if correct them using small patch file, > it is work correct. > Ubuntu simply accepted the concept and supplied a client software (Jockey) to do the downloads. > But in Fedora13, it not works. Because Fedora13 realizes "Automatic > Download/Installation" using own mechanism. > > Fedora/Red Hat has developed an own concept which is based on purely using package repositories without using a centralized database. This is mainly intended for Fedora to distribute their own packages of free software printer drivers. We are also looking into adding support for this concept into our packages as an additional access method. But note that it has a disadvantage against our concept of using the central OpenPrinting database. To find drivers you need the URLs of every manufacturer's/driver supplier's repository, with our concept you only need to search the OpenPrinting database. To make OpenPrinting a one-stop location when using the Fedora/Red Hat concept we would need to carry all driver packages on the OpenPrinting server physically (not only links to them) and then distributions could make the Linux Foundation responsible for the packages. > And in OpenSUSE 11.3, Novell say that "Do you sign a legal agreement with > Novell to take responsibility?" > In the above PDF file at page 6 say that "Manufacturers should sign a legal > agreement to take responsibility." But it is not clear. > - Who sign with Manufacturers? > - How do I sign? > - Is detail decided? > We proceed as described on https://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/writingandpackagingprinterdrivers#Signing_your_packages using method 3 in "Build a trusted path to distributions". > These seems each distribution require each requests. > (Must we support each distribution mechanism..!?) > We want to realize this all distributions using same mechanism. > My intention is that all distributions use the same concept and therefore I have tried to fulfill all the distribution's need with my design, not only providing LSB-based packages in indexed repositories of both RPM and DEB packages but also allow selection with criteria like whether drivers are free software, whether they contain only PPDs or also binary executables, signing, hosting by manufaturer, repository info for integrating packages in the distro's auto-update concepts, ... > We want to unite the mechanism in this communication. > Would we have discussion on this mail? Yes, feel free to discuss on this mailing list. Till