> On July 2, 2017, 10:34 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > KDE 4.1 is long gone.  What is fileprinter supposed to be replaced with?
> > 
> > Some code in Qt that was never made public
> > 
> > > What direction should I take to obtain something mergeable?
> > 
> > Get people that actually use Okular to print with different printers to 
> > test it. Or otherwise just say "fuck it" and merge it and fix all the 
> > things that break afterwards :D
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Have you tested printing to different sizes? What about margins?

> Some code in Qt that was never made public

Does this mean that fileprinter is here to stay now?

> Get people that actually use Okular to print with different printers to test 
> it. Or
> otherwise just say "fuck it" and merge it and fix all the things that break 
> afterwards :D

I tested a few configurations, but I don't think one person can exhaustively 
test these things anyway.  How about the following: we merge it, but we add a 
new option to the print dialog "Fall back to ghostscript printing" (default: 
off).  That would allow to pacify angry users quickly, and it may help with 
debugging, too.  If things are quiet for a year or two we can then remove the 
option.

I don't really have any clue how to do printing with annotations without 
ghostscript.  Any ideas?  Will that require poppler support?  Like a new option 
in Poppler::PdfConverter?


- Oliver


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130055/#review103401
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 4, 2017, 1:44 p.m., Oliver Sander wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130055/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 4, 2017, 1:44 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Okular.
> 
> 
> Repository: okular
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch is an improved version of what is in the pdfprintpdf branch.  
> (There is really only a single patch in that branch.)
> 
> The patch tries to avoid converting pdf files to ps files for printing as 
> much as possible.  In particular:
> 
> - If we are printing a file, and printing of annotations is not requested, 
> then the pdf file is sent straight to the printer.
> - If rasterization is requested, then the short previously-windows-only 
> printing code is used, because it does exactly that: printing by 
> rasterization.
> - In all other cases, the file is converted to ps as before.
> - The big #ifdef Q_OS_WIN ... #else ... #endif is removed.  All code is 
> compiled on all platforms, but on Windows forceRasterize is always set. 
> Therefore, the behavior on Windows remains unchanged.
> 
> There are a few behavioral changes that I know of:
> - The resolution of the rasterization most likely changes.  Don't know 
> whether this is a problem.
> - Previously, when printing without printAnnots to a file, the result file 
> did not have the annotations anymore.  With the new code, the annotations are 
> still there, but they are still actual annotations, unlike what you get when 
> using the old code to print annotations.  I am not sure whether to call this 
> a regression or a feature.
> 
> I am motivated to improve this patch some more, but I need some guidance.  
> What direction should I take to obtain something mergeable?
> 
> Also: in the file fileprinter.h it says:
> 
> // This Class is a temporary addition to Okular for the duration of KDE 4.0.
> // In KDE 4.1 this class will either be moved to kdelibs if still required,
> // or replaced  with a Qt 4.4 based solution.
> 
> KDE 4.1 is long gone.  What is fileprinter supposed to be replaced with?
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   generators/poppler/generator_pdf.h a078f50b 
>   generators/poppler/generator_pdf.cpp 42ccb3a2 
>   part.cpp df38e85e 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/130055/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Oliver Sander
> 
>

Reply via email to