[cups.general] Sense and nonsense of RIPCache

[Tim Waugh]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 17:03 +0200, Till Kamppeter wrote:
> Or, as manual RIP_MAX_CACHE has always the risk of failure and letting 
> Ghostscript decide always works and even with reasonable memory 
> consumption, we should perhaps even better remove the RIP_MAX_CACHE 
> support from Ghostscript's "cups" output device completely. WDYT?

Do we know that for sure?  I'm not familiar enough with ghostscript to
say.  If it's confirmed by one of the ghostscript developers then the
proposal above sounds correct.  Otherwise I'd go with the
RIP_MAX_CACHE=auto scheme you suggested.

Tim.
*/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.cups.org/pipermail/cups/attachments/20100727/735a28df/attachment.bin>