No provision for printing pictures under Lubuntu 14.04? [Bug filed]

[John Hupp]

Done: at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mtpaint/+bug/1441355 
with the Lubuntu Packages Team subscribed.

On 4/7/2015 12:59 PM, Walter Lapchynski wrote:
> please file a bug against mtpaint (ubuntu-bug mtpaint). it should not
> require something that doesn't exist. XD subscribe lubuntu packages
> team to the bug report and we'll get it fixed, at least to using lpr.
> then at least it will work right out of the box, even if it's not the
> best thing.1
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:54 AM, John Hupp <lubuntu at prpcompany.com> wrote:
>> I can't find much information, but I think that the original Print command,
>> kprinter, was part of the kdeprinter package, which is not installed and not
>> in the repos.
>>
>> Despite what I first reported, lpr will work.  The computer I was on when
>> visiting, a Dell Dimension 4300, may have an issue with hot-plugging the USB
>> printer/scanner.  (For instance, though I didn't get to test it properly, it
>> seemed that scanning would only work when the scanner was powered on during
>> boot.)
>>
>> However, I'll make the case that commonly expected behavior is for a Print
>> dialog to appear, which of course doesn't happen with lpr.  Granted, there
>> is a counter-argument for maximum lightness.
>>
>> And now that I'm back on my usual current Lubuntu desktop, I notice that the
>> context menu for a picture file also includes Shotwell Viewer, and choosing
>> this opens the file in a lighter variant of the Shotwell interface.  The
>> Shotwell Viewer interface includes File: Print, which opens a customary
>> Print dialog.
>>
>> As I noted in my original post, I installed Shotwell after realizing that
>> there was no default photo management app, and Shotwell seemed to be the
>> commonest recommendation, though Andre Rodovalho posted in this thread that
>> he is using a non-repo version of Fotoxx.  He says there is an older version
>> in the repos.
>>
>> I realize I'm saying that in a couple ways, default Lubuntu is a little too
>> light for my taste (no photo manager, image viewer doesn't print).  But
>> MtPaint printing should be fixed somehow in any case.
>>
>> On 4/6/2015 10:04 AM, John Hupp wrote:
>>
>> The default print command is kprinter.
>>
>> Following the Puppy Linux article, I installed gtklp and then substituted
>> that for kprinter.
>>
>> Using lpr instead of gtklp for the print command does not work.  At least to
>> the casual observer, it yields the same no-response as kprinter.
>>
>> On 4/5/2015 10:23 PM, Walter Lapchynski wrote:
>>
>> Seems like it's not a bug, per se. Intended function upstream, it seems.
>> What is the default print command? Does `lpr` work? I often use this on the
>> command line to print PDFs, so it seems plausible. This may be something we
>> can fix in the default settings of MtPaint, if we explore all of the
>> possible options and hopefully find the one that uses the least amount of
>> resources. Since `lpr` is included in the standard system, this would seem
>> to make the most sense.
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2015 5:15 PM, "John Hupp" <lubuntu at prpcompany.com> wrote:
>>> Visiting family this weekend and looking at a couple problems, I
>>> discovered that under the default installation of Lubuntu 14.04 there seems
>>> to be no provision for printing pictures.
>>>
>>> The image viewer has no Print option.  And when I instead opened a picture
>>> in mtPaint and then tried File: Action: Print Image, nothing happened.
>>>
>>> I got mtPaint's File: Action: Print Image functionality working by
>>> following the 'How to Print' section of this Puppy Linux article:
>>> http://puppylinux.org/wikka/UsingMtPaint
>>>
>>> I also found that I could print using Firefox, but I would have expected
>>> to be able to print a pic via the image viewer or the paint program.
>>>
>>> It seems like more than a trivial omission to have no default picture
>>> printing provision.
>>>
>>> [I had a similar realization recently regarding photo management.  I
>>> installed Shotwell to add that capability, but it seemed like there should
>>> have been a native provision.]
>>>
>>> How do you handle these things?
>>>