Re: Should LPR be the standard printer daemon?
On Fri, Nov 20, 1998 at 09:21:27AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adam J. Klein writes:
> > This message follows up on the previous LPR thread. Until I get a
> > reasonably maintainable and definately secure version of LPR int the
> > distributions, why don't we make LPRng the standard lpd, and move LPR to
> > optional or extra? One problem might be, and since I don't use lprng, I
> > don't know much about it, is the complexity of configuring LPRng. Is it
> > harder for a newbie to set it up than to set up lpr? Comments, please.
> Maybe it's more comfortable, but the last time I had to use lprng, I
> was unable to get printing and pcnfsd configured working (however on a
> LST 2.2 distribution, but they don't have lpr at all). The problem was
> printing from one DOS client, using the spool dir on the linux server
> and forwarding the printjob to another DOS client with the printer.
> Maybe not a common task, but it did only work with lpr.
On my box lprng doesn't print with netatalk (papd) by default.
I had to do a lot of configuration by hand (strace-ing the papd
to see what files it tries to access and making suitables symlinks
in the spool directories...).
lpr works out of the box.
Federico Di Gregorio | / mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Debian developer! | / -1 http://pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it/~fog
*-=$< ;-P TeX Winzard? |/ http://www.debian.org