Re: LP #1083757 and LibreOffice
I have opened this Blueprint when CUPS 1.6.x was under development and
in this version CUPS' print queue broadcasting and browsing was dropped.
The DNS-SD broadcasting was supposed to replace it but it was missing
out automatic print queue creation on CUPS clients.
I actually solved the problem by adding cups-browsed which introduced
automatic print queue creation based on DNS-SD broadcasts from remote
CUPS servers.
This required CUPS, cups-browsed, and avahi-daemon running on the client.
Your observation of a recent LibreOffice version showing printers in its
print dialog with CUPS and cups-browsed stopped is only possible if the
print dialog itself grabs DNS-SD broadcasts of remote printers and lists
these printers. Assuming it is correctly implemented it talks IPP to the
printers/remote CUPS queues directly, without using a locally running
CUPS daemon.
The latest approach is the new CPDB (Common Print Dialog Backends)
project of OpenPrinting. It was developed in the GSoC 2017 and was
already introduced on this mailing list (see srchives).
Print dislogs are supposed to communicate with printing systems (CUPS,
Google Cloud Print, Print to file, ...) only through backends, so that
new printing systems only need a new backend to get supported under all
apps and changes in printing system require only changes in the
corresponding backend, not in each dialog.
LibreOffice has accepted the changes for supporting this concept, but it
is needed that Debian accepts the new packages with the libraries and
the backends, see earlier postings (unfortunately all unanswered) on
this list.
Till
On 01/04/2018 11:47 AM, Brian Potkin wrote:
According to
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-r-cups-bonjour-browsing
a fix to the LibreOffice Print dialog for #1083757 has been released
and I observe that the dialog is populated when neither cups-browsed
nor cupsd is running. However, I cannot track down where and when the
fix first appeared in LibreOffice. Any chance of a clue?
Cheers,
Brian.
Reply to: