cups-filters 1.25.2 released!
Hi,
I have released cups-filters 1.25.2 now, with the following changes:
- foomatic-rip: Fixed segmentation fault when running
foomatic-rip by hand and the PRINTER environment variable is
not set (Pull request #139).
- cups-browsed: Added note to cups-browsed.conf and man page
about IP-based URIs depending on the network interface used.
- cups-browsed: For each DNS-SD-discovered printer register
each DNS-SD discovery instance with network interface,
family, and IPP type. When DNS-SD messages of instances
disappearing show up, only unregister this instance and
remove the printer only if no instance is left. This
prevents a local queue of a still available printer being
removed when Wi-Fi (= one interface) is turned off (Issue
#136).
- cups-browsed: If a remote printer is served from the local
machine, prefer the "localhost"/loopback interface URI.
- cups-browsed: If a remote printer is discovered more than
once, use the new instance only if it has no downgrades and
at least one upgrade compared to the old one. Features
currently compared are IPP/IPPS, loopback interface or not,
and discovery via CUPS legacy/LDAP/DNS-SD.
- cups-browsed: If an Avahi-discovered entry comes through the
"lo" interface, always use the host name "localhost". Use
IP addresses instead of host names only if explicitly
requested.
- cups-browsed: Consider remote printer entries also as from
the same printer if one has the local machine's network name
and the other "localhost" as host name (Issue #136).
Improved cups-browsed's handling of the DNS-SD records of advertised
local and remote IPP print services. Especially made sure that local
queues do not get already removed when the service on a single network
interface disappears (for example Wi-Fi turned off) while still present
on other interfaces. Also let local services preferably be accessed
through the loopback ("localhost") interface to avoid data leaks into
the network.
Please release this on Debian so that I can sync it into Ubuntu.
Thanks in advance.
Till
Reply to: