Flyspray:: http://bugs.shaftnet.org/ Flyspray::CUPS Dyesub Backends: Recently closed tasks 2018-09-18T18:10:15Z FS#539: Consolidate CW-01 and DNP backends http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=539 2018-09-18T18:10:15Z Solomon Peachy There's a great deal of overlap; the main difference is the format of the print job. It may make sense to fold the CW-01 stuff into the DNP backend (including the spool format), but alternatively perhaps just a shared library? There's a great deal of overlap; the main difference is the format of the print job. It may make sense to fold the CW-01 stuff into the DNP backend (including the spool format), but alternatively perhaps just a shared library?

]]>
FS#550: Verify support for D707 http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=550 2018-09-18T18:09:48Z Solomon Peachy Code's complete, but needs to be verified.   Code's complete, but needs to be verified.

 

]]>
FS#604: Use a simpler URI scheme http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=604 2018-09-18T18:08:41Z Solomon Peachy Currently the URI scheme is a little convoluted:      prefix://iManufacturer/iModel?backend=XXX&serial=YYYY I'd like to move to something much simpler:      prefix://backend/serial Now that the core code returns a unique, per-model string that can be used to look up the backend, this is a far simpler approach to take.  We'll have to support the old scheme indefinitely though. Currently the URI scheme is a little convoluted:

     prefix://iManufacturer/iModel?backend=XXX&serial=YYYY

I'd like to move to something much simpler:

     prefix://backend/serial

Now that the core code returns a unique, per-model string that can be used to look up the backend, this is a far simpler approach to take.  We'll have to support the old scheme indefinitely though.

]]>
FS#541: Validate Mitsubishi CP-D90 support http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=541 2018-05-20T02:11:13Z Solomon Peachy It looks like it's an evolution of the D70 family, with one critical exception -- it appears as if the color/thermal compensation is performed in the printer instead of the driver! It looks like it's an evolution of the D70 family, with one critical exception -- it appears as if the color/thermal compensation is performed in the printer instead of the driver!

]]>
FS#601: Figure out a way to add a generic test harness for file parsing http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=601 2018-05-13T13:09:37Z Solomon Peachy Right now there's no way to parse the input files without the printer being attached first. Would require shimming libusb... Right now there's no way to parse the input files without the printer being attached first.

Would require shimming libusb...

]]>
FS#600: Add support for CUPS Command files http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=600 2018-04-28T21:53:04Z Solomon Peachy CUPS defines a "command filter" that gives the ability to perform some actions and queries. ReportLevels -- marker-levels and whatnot.  Highly useful. ReportStatus -- Once we get unified reporting in place, will be handy. AutoConfigure -- Allows the PPD defaults to be updated based on printer configuration.  (!!) PrintSelfTestPage -- For printers that support it [and others that don't matter] There appears to be no way to distinguish betwen a command filter vs print filter via the cmdline or environment.  traditionally these are seperate executables that expect different input data.  I'd like to figure out a way to make the backends detect the command stream vs the normal backend data, and do it all in one executable. CUPS defines a "command filter" that gives the ability to perform some actions and queries.

  • ReportLevels -- marker-levels and whatnot.  Highly useful.
  • ReportStatus -- Once we get unified reporting in place, will be handy.
  • AutoConfigure -- Allows the PPD defaults to be updated based on printer configuration.  (!!)
  • PrintSelfTestPage -- For printers that support it
  • [and others that don't matter]

There appears to be no way to distinguish betwen a command filter vs print filter via the cmdline or environment.  traditionally these are seperate executables that expect different input data.  I'd like to figure out a way to make the backends detect the command stream vs the normal backend data, and do it all in one executable.

]]>
FS#596: Figure out if Citizen CW-02/OP900II are closer to CX or CY series http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=596 2018-03-27T00:04:19Z Solomon Peachy ...or if they need their own designation in Gutenprint and selphy_print. It looks like they don't map entirely cleanly to either for avialable print options, but the real question is the firmware version tests for features. ...or if they need their own designation in Gutenprint and selphy_print.

It looks like they don't map entirely cleanly to either for avialable print options, but the real question is the firmware version tests for features.

]]>
FS#599: Enhance Magicard driver to allow for different options on the duplex side. http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=599 2018-03-18T18:45:05Z Solomon Peachy At minimum, the overcoat hole is different on front vs back (eg smartcard vs magstripe). Magstripe probably only belongs on the back, smartcard on the front. Holokote and holopatch likely need to be different too. At minimum, the overcoat hole is different on front vs back (eg smartcard vs magstripe).

Magstripe probably only belongs on the back, smartcard on the front.

Holokote and holopatch likely need to be different too.

]]>
FS#597: Allow for aliases in backend names? http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=597 2018-03-16T19:38:04Z Solomon Peachy That would allow us to present a 'modern' name for the backend but still provide backwards compatibility. eg: dnpds40 -> dnp_citizen or mitsu9550 -> mitsu9xxx or mitsup95d->mitsu_p9x Another approach would be to make things more fine-grained.   That would allow us to present a 'modern' name for the backend but still provide backwards compatibility.

eg: dnpds40 -> dnp_citizen or mitsu9550 -> mitsu9xxx or mitsup95d->mitsu_p9x

Another approach would be to make things more fine-grained.

 

]]>
FS#532: Verify support for S1245 http://bugs.shaftnet.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=532 2018-01-27T01:29:07Z Solomon Peachy Code complete, but needs testing. Code complete, but needs testing.

]]>