Re: samba (2:3.6.1-3) squeeze-backports request
Am 06.03.2012 08:17, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Peter Schaefer (peter.schaefer@gmx.de):
This is great news! 3.6.2 fixed so many printing issues and with respect
to CVE-2012-0870 3.6.3 is really the very first version usable for us with
Windows 7 clients and SMB printing.
Well, I was quite safely using a 3.5.11 backport on my print server
pool that serves 300+ printers for about 1000+ clients (ranging from
Windows XP to Windows 7....we could even support W2K clients until the
print drivers we're using (HP Universal Postscript) stopped being
supported on W2K clients.
I even included in squeeze's 3.5.6 several patches that are meant to
fix printing issues (mostly with Win7 clients) but some more might be
missing (I consider such bugs as "important" and thus worth an update
in stable, which has always been accepted by the SRM).
Squeeze was necessary to be DC for Win7, but printing did not work
for us.
Unfortunately, i'm just a spare-time-admin who just occasionally
drops in to fix issues, so i don't have much time to investigate
(i wish i had) - and i'm always operating on the live system...
Most of the time, i also just have to "rely" on hearsay...
The server does faxing, email, file- and print and did host
Windows VMs, too. Eggs in a basket, but - hey - it's cheap and
it's running Linux!
So, the quick fix was just to give up on SMB and use native CUPS
(i.e. IPP) printing with Windows 7. From that point on i did not
track further fixes in 3.5.x. Windows XP users were fine, afaik.
In my experience it seems to depend on the drivers. I've got the
most issues with Kyocera's. I remember also some issues with
spooling (i.e. vanished jobs or unkillable ones).
Since CUPS-printing also had some spurious issues, the shop's now
back on SMB printing (with my self-compiled 3.6.3) and i did not
hear of any issues since. At the week-end i'll switch to the
'official' binary and then it'll hopefully another case of
never-ever-touch-the-(now-running)-system-*again*.
Thanks & Regards,
Peter
Reply to: