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

Bug#748533: Processed: Re: still unable to print




On November 4, 2015 11:48:17 PM EST, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 04 2015, Maximiliano Curia <maxy@gnuservers.com.ar> wrote:
>> Please avoid reopening old bugs, it's better to ask in the debian-kde
>users
>> list or in the #debian-kde irc channel, if that wouldn't help then
>open a new
>> one. The issue that was reported here was fixed: cups-bsd was added
>as a
>> recommends.
>
>Hi, Max.  Thanks for the response.
>
>I don't see the problem with re-opening old bugs if that is what is
>called for.  If the problem persists, then clearly the problem was not
>fully addressed, which is the situation here.  I was experiencing a
>failure to print from okular.  I did due diligence in searching for an
>existing bug that addressed the issue, rather than blindly filing a new
>report.  I found the bug that I referenced, and since the closing of
>that report didn't describe how the problem was fixed I reopened it as
>not fixed.  I think that was all completely justified.
>
>> Also, when you send a message to control your mail is not shown in
>the bug,
>> you need to cc the bug for that.
>
>I tried cc'ing the bug, but the message was bounced because the bug had
>been archived.
>
>> okular uses the lpr from cups, if you have a different lpr it needs
>to accept
>> the same parameters. You could try:
>> apt install cups-bsd lpr- lprng- gnuspool-
>
>This might be a fix, but I don't think it's actually a suitable
>solution
>to the overall problem.  Without cups-bsd installed, okular just
>silently fails to print.  There is no notification to the user other
>than a cryptic message to the terminal that would only ever be seen if
>you were to launch okular from the terminal (which certainly most
>people
>don't do).  It seems like a better solution could be devised.

Okular already Recommends cups-bsd, so reopening the bug that suggests it be added makes no sense.

Scott K


Reply to: