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

Bug#586702: cups insists on lp owning /dev/lp? - lp group rw isn't good enough

Package: cups
Version: 1.3.8-1+lenny6

Trying to print to an HPLJ6 on /dev/lp1 fails if lp is not the owner of
the device node, even if lp has group rw on it. (Same applies to other
parallel ports.)

crw-rw---- 1 root lp 6, 1 Jun 17 20:13 /dev/lp1 - Doesn't work.

/var/log/cups/error_log contains:

E [21/Jun/2010:15:15:19 +0100] PID 31216 (/usr/lib/cups/backend/parallel) stopped with status 1!
E [21/Jun/2010:15:15:19 +0100] [Job 352] Unable to open device file "/dev/lp1": Permission denied

Note "permission denied" even though lp has rw permissions on the

chowning the node to lp:sys and restarting cups fixes it.

crw-rw---- 1 lp sys 6, 1 Jun 17 20:13 /dev/lp1 - Does work.

However these permissions automatically revert to the
non-working setup on reboot so it is necessary either to
chown it again manually every time or bodge it with a
startup script.

Versions of packages cups Depends on:

libavahi-compat-libdnssd1 0.6.23-3lenny1
libc6 2.7-18
libcups2 1.3.8-1+lenny6
libcupsimage2 1.3.8-1+lenny6
libdbus-1-3 1.2.1-5+lenny1
libgnutls26 2.4.2-6+lenny1
libkrb53 1.6.dfsg.4~beta1-5lenny1
libldap-2.4-2 2.4.11-1
libpam0g 1.0.1-5+lenny1
libpaper1 1.1.21
libslp1 1.2.1-6.2
debconf 1.5.11etch2
xpdf-utils 3.01-9.1+etch5
perl-modules 5.10.0-19lenny2
procps 1:3.2.7-3
ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.2lenny1
lsb-base 3.2-20
cups-common 1.3.8-1+lenny6
ssl-cert 1.0.23
adduser 3.102

Versions of packages cups Recommends:

cups-client 1.3.8-1+lenny6
smbclient 3.0.24-6etch10
foomatic-filters 3.0.2-20061031-1.2
avahi-utils 0.6.23-3lenny1

Versions of installed packages cups Suggests:

cups-bsd 1.3.8-1+lenny6
foomatic-db-engine 3.0.2-20061031-1
foomatic-db 20061031-1
hplip 2.8.6.b-4


Be kind to pigeons        - -        Pigeon's Nest: http://pigeonsnest.co.uk/
GPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21C61F7F

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: