Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/20/2003 10:07:37
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:

> [1] The chances that I want Postscript output as plain text out of
> a *printer* (think about how much paper that is...) are maybe 1 in
> 1000, and I can go to some special effort to make it happen; anyway,

Exactly. So why does cups require arcane options or file magic to
recognize postscript, when all programs that print on unix send
nothing but?

> we *already* grovel file contents for things like file(1)... do
> you disapprove of that? Can you show an example of when CUPS got
> this wrong in the real world?

I tried "lpdwrapper" without CUPS, only to find that the ghostscript
examples print out as reams of text. I briefly considered installing
CUPS as recommended, then realized that it was all folly, and wrote
a tiny filter that runs ghostscript over every job unless it was
submitted via "lpr -l".