On Fri 27 Jul 2012 at 12:00:34 +0200, Gaël DONVAL wrote: > Le jeudi 26 juillet 2012 à 23:14 +0100, Brian a écrit : > > I'll take the 'whatever'. > > > > lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.ps > > > > goes to the printer (the machine) without any filtering and gives a nice > > printout if the machine understands PostScript. > > > > lp -d <print_queue> -o raw test.pdf > > > > also does the same but the printout will not please you unless the > > machine has a PDF interpreter. > > Well, on my system it prints fine. I'm glad to know my PS printer can > understand PDF as well (and raw ascii text too BTW) :)
Interesting, I might investige getting one. Mine prints page after page of raw, stepped PDF code. > Now just remove the "-o raw" and you can print whatever you want … This > was my point: you use lp which is provided by a package which does all > the filtering work for you (except if you explicitly tell it not to do). I understood this from the start but cannot see how it in any way alters what I originally said. > Should you say you had to pipe your file directly to the printer, the > choice of the output format could become a serious issue for you. But > you have filters. Then I don't understand why you care about the output > format of your applications. It is an undisputed fact that an application such as Iceweasel always feeds PDF to CUPS when printing, so with your printer the filtering chain is PDF --> pdftopdf ----> Printer Which is rather nice. Some people would see the lack of involvement of GhostScript as a plus. If Iceweasel had PostScript as its output there would in most cases be an extra pstopdf conversion. One's attitude towards caring about such things would depend on how having a standard print job format as PDF is viewed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727151247.GD6660@desktop
