Bug#883554: cups keeps breaking network printer with implicitclass:
On Tue 12 Dec 2017 at 09:16:22 -0600, David Fries wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:10:22PM +0000, Brian Potkin wrote:
> > On Wed 06 Dec 2017 at 18:56:33 +0000, Brian Potkin wrote:
> > > On Tue 05 Dec 2017 at 19:43:54 -0600, David Fries wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:52:53PM +0000, Brian Potkin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 04 Dec 2017 at 23:47:04 -0600, David Fries wrote:
> > > Forget about this. It doesn't help towards a solution and, if I had
> > > thought on about it, I should not have sought out the information I
> > > was after with that command.
> > >
> > > What I wanted to find out was whether you used a PPD with the CUPS
> > > web interface and an ipp:// or dnssd:// URI. Because you can print
> > > (initially at least) it implies you didn't.
>
> I don't know how to answer your question, this is the sequence I do go
> get it to print, then after a period of time it reverts to something
> that's broken. Does this select a PPD?
No. Setting up a queue with the web interface is a manual method. You
have to specify everything.
> Through the web interface I go to modify printer, Discovered Network
> Printers, continue, Make: Canon, Model, "Current Driver - Remote
> printer: Canon BJC-2100 - CUPS+Gutenprint v5.2.11", Modify Printer.
> Then it lists the connection with dnssd://Canon%20BJC-2100%20%40%20...
>
> > > > The majority seems to be different page sizes, dithering, and such.
> > > > The header and cupsFilter might be of interest, so included here.
> > > >
> > > > --- Canon_BJC-2100.ppd 2017-12-05 09:35:07.689792328 -0600
> > >
> > > This is the PPD on the client?
> > >
> > > > +++ Canon_BJC-2100_remote.ppd 2015-11-29 00:33:04.432331311 -0600
> > >
> > > This is the PPD on the server?
>
> No, both were from the client, the Canon_BJC-2100_remote.ppd was from
> 2015.
Your lpstat output in another mail has as the only queue
Canon_BJC-2100 accepting requests since Tue Dec 5 19:19:12 2017
You cannot have two PPDs for the same queue.
Canon_BJC-2100_remote.ppd 2015-11-29 00:33:04.432331311 -0600
is redundant; possibly a leftover from something. Move it out of the way
or delete it.
Canon_BJC-2100.ppd 2017-12-05 09:35:07.689792328 -0600
is probably the working PPD. Let's try
> > > > lpstat -t
> > > > scheduler is running
> > > > system default destination: Canon_BJC-2100
> > > > device for Canon_BJC-2100: implicitclass:Canon_BJC-2100
> > > > Canon_BJC-2100 accepting requests since Tue Dec 5 19:19:12 2017
> > > > printer Canon_BJC-2100 is idle. enabled since Tue Dec 5 19:19:12 2017
> > > >
> > > > How about this sequence, I go through the web interface, change it to
> > > > the ipps URI that works. Verify in the browser it is the ipps URI,
> > > > verify with `lpstat -t` it is ipps URI, wait until
> > > > /etc/cups/printers.conf has the ipps DeviceURI, then.
> > > > systemctl stop cups-browsed.service
> > > > systemctl start cups-browsed.service
> > > > and the browser immediately lists implicitclass:Canon_BJC-2100
> > >
> > > I can now reproduce your observations, apart from the non-printing
> > > aspect.
>
> Do you get implicitclass:Canon_BJC-2100 ?
Yes, but only after restarting cups-browsed. And I still had printing.
[Snip]
Let's try this:
1. Stop cups-browsed. 'systemctl stop cups-browsed'.
2. 'lpadmin -x Canon_BJC-2100'.
3. /etc/cups/ppd should now be empty and 'lpstat -t' should show no
print queues. Hopefully, the client is cleared of all knowledge
of the server.
4. Restart cups-browsed. 'systemctl start cups-browsed'.
5. 'lpstat -t' should show a print queue with an implicitclass URI
which has automatically been set up by cups-browsed, There
should be a non-empty PPD in /etc/cups/ppd and you should be able
to print to the queue.
6. Now set up this queue:
lpadmin -p 2100 -v ipp://server_ip/print/queue_name -E -m raw
7. You should be able to print to both queues.
[Snip]
> > Any progress on this, David?
>
> Sorry finding time is hard, thanks for being responsive.
I understand. Don't rush. If there is a bug it appears to be in
cups-browsed. But I don't experience it - so I hope you can see
my quandry.
Cheers,
Brian.
Reply to: