On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2012/3/8 Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz>:
> The lazy answer to both is "fail, or not, the same way as cups
> currently fails, or not" (in fact, could the session printing service
> simply be cups that treats the system instance as another remote
> server?).
If we were looking for the lazy answer, we'd just not bother with queing at all.
Right... I just wanted to make sure that any potential work on user
session printing is not discouraged by adding requirements that are
not currently satisfied with the system daemon.
Mirek