This table shows the gutenscript-ghostscript and system-config-printer printer systems and their necessary dependencies.
Code: Select all
gutenscript-ghostscript system-config-printer
______________________________________________________
dbus-python
foomatic-filters
ghostscript ghostscript-9.05
ghostscript-fonts-std
gutenprint gutenprint
notify-python
pycairo
pycups
pycurl
pygobject
pygtk
python
system-config-printer
cups cups
libglade
1) as a printer solution system-config-printer includes all the dependencies of gutenprint-ghostscript except ghostscript-fonts standard:
http://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=1994
2) both printer solutions need cups for proper functioning, system-config-printer needs in addition libglade (both libglade, and cups are already stock on porteus). I am not sure if without libglade gutenprint-ghostscript solution would work.
When calling gutenprint as a printer solution from PPM, it would be good that it did not call other packages in excess of ghostscript and ghostscript-fonts. There is no need for gimp for example. The interface for setting the printer will be CUPS or
http://localhost:631/admin/.
When calling for system-config-printer as a printer solution from PPM, it would be good that all the packages you listed could be called except ghostscript-fonts, which does not seem to be necessary according to Quax (and to my testing done to date). The interface will be system-config-printer gui, which does not need a browser to function.
3) There is a third printer solution HPLIP, for which wread has developed a package for 32bit porteus edition only (to my knowledge):
http://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=457#p3212
I do not know if its been updated for porteus 2.0. It seems quite heavy in terms of MB. I would have to look at the available printers covered and see if it present any superior advantage.
I have seen gutenscript-ghostscript, system-config-printer, foomatic and hplip, all invoqued on Crunchbang OS to get the printer solution running.
There could be an advantage to have foomatic within the gutenprint-ghostscript solution. I do not know, I would have to test it.
For a more comprehensive solution you get into a more tailored approach. But for now, I do not think that we should go further. For example, for some Canon printers CAPT could be useful:
http://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=1983
It is easy to implement with two printer drivers. It will offer a number of additional Canon printers.
I would keep the three main printer solutions separate and see what is their respective coverage. And as we can see for big distributions, offer some threads for specific difficult printers.
Maybe wread should join up this discussion. He is the hplip specialist. I will return to hplip to see how it behave and what is its printer coverage.
I hope this answers to your questions. Please feel free to ask any additional questions.