[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

My L.2,

 Federico Di Gregorio   |  /      mailto:fog@debian.org              
  Debian developer!     | / -1    http://pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it/~fog 
*-=$< ;-P TeX Winzard?  |/        http://www.debian.org              

Reply to: