Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] Apparent overlap in printing command configuration

[Reuben Thomas]

On 25 April 2010 14:57, Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for the info.  The printing commands might be a bit of a problem.
> Up to now we've had Berkeley style commands (lpr, lpq) but those were
> not available on my Debian system until I installed the cups-bsd
> package.  So my impression is that the System V style commands (lp,
> lpstat) might be available on a higher percentage of systems.  But
> looking at how Debian handles this does not really qualify to derive a
> conclusion like that.  Does anybody know which set of commands is more
> widespread?

CUPS does have BSD-compatible wrappers, as you've noted, and will do
for the foreseeable future. Hence, the interesting question is: how
many BSD systems have the System V printing commands? Mac OS X, for
example, has CUPS, but I'm not sure about the proper BSDs.

> For now I've switched the commands to System V style in the defaults of
> AUCTeX, but they can be changed again should somebody provide more
> insight on the matter.  (Using lpq instead of lpstat would actually be
> better because the former can provide output for an unnamed default
> printer in contrast to the latter.)

I guess one can use something like

lpstat `lpstat -d`

> Regarding `TeX-print-command' and `TeX-printer-list', I think I've found
> out why they both have default values for the printing commands.

Thanks for this analysis. It would be good to explain this somewhere.
Having the commands more similar (as you have made them) will help
dispel confusion, in any case.

> Regarding support for Postscript and PDF output files, that should work
> now.

Excellent, thanks. I look forward to trying all this stuff in the next release.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org