On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 07:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > I'd say s/reluctant/strongly opposed/ to xprint but that has been > > discussed elsewhere and no need for dÃjà vu all over again. > > The only responses I've ever seen/heard from redhat regarding xprint is > a curt replies like yours. > > I don't know about your deja-vu, but all I know is that xprint has > worked for me personally going back to the mozilla-1.4 days. What's > troublesome to me is that I see no harm in simply enabling xprint > support in the mozilla builds, since it does nothing if xprint isn't > installed and running, yet redhat *still* refuses to even allow that. To summarize briefly: - xprint doesn't use the font system that we use everywhere else (fontconfig) - xprint can't use the layout system we use everywhere else (Pango) - xprint doesn't integrate well with the printing system that we use everywhere else (CUPS) - xprint can't use the desktop-wide printing dialog (libgnomeprintui) The first and last are important ones for why enabling Xprint support in the build is a bad idea; we can't provide as good a font or printer selection user interface if the printing backend might be incompatible with our standard technologies rather than closely integrated with our standard technologies. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
