
Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[tlug] [tlug-digest] Mozilla Printing. gimpprint is already installed.
- Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:06:58 +0900
- From: David Riggs <dariggs@example.com>
- Subject: [tlug] [tlug-digest] Mozilla Printing. gimpprint is already installed.
- References: <200601020758.k027wavG013807@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050420 Debian/1.7.7-2
As Steve and Josh said:
> Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>
>
> On 02/01/06, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gag me. (There should be drivers in the gimpprint and ghostscript
>>distros. If there are not, then either the printer is really new or
>>the mfr Doesn't Get It.)
>
--->
> So what Steve is saying is:
>
> sudo apt-get install gimpprint
>
>
>> David> 1. I have no postscript options for this printer in CUPS
>> David> 631-- the Samsung is not postscript.
>>
>>CUPS should be driving Postscript through a third party app such as
>>Ghostscript or gimpprint.
>
>
> Try to re-install the printer after you have installed gimpprint. Use
> a gimpprint driver, and hopefully the option to render Postscript
> level 2 will appear.
>
Thanks Steve and Josh--
I can find no drivers for this scx-4100 on linuxprinting.org. There have
been lots of problems with the Samsung install in the past, but now it
at least installs OK.
I do have gimpprint installed (it gets dragged in with CUPS it seems).
Though the naming is slightly different:
I do have gimpprint, though not installed as "gimpprint" which does not
exist. apt-cache search gimpprint shows these installed:
"i cupsys-driver-gimpprint - printer
drivers for CUPS
i A cupsys-driver-gimpprint-data - Gimp-Print
printer drivers for CUPS
i A ijsgimpprint - printer
drivers for CUPS
i A libgimpprint1 - The
Gimp-Print printer driver library"
If I "apt-cache show" the driver package cupsys-driver-gimpprint, it
says, (among much else):
"This is Gimp-Print version 4.2.7"
BTW I have tried various encodings to produce the html Mozilla is
reading (not just my usual utf-8) and they give the same results or worse.
There must be a way to understand all this, or at least a little bit of it!
I will keep experimenting.
Thanks,
David
Kyoto
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index