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

Re: SMB printing problems - solved



Hello!

Yeah, I finally managed to set it up!!! I threw the magicfilter into the
trashcan and tried apsfilter. Not the .deb, but the newest (5.2 I think)
version from the author's homepage. And that can automatically be configured
to print via smbclient! It was so easy. I recommend it to all of you who
have any similar problems. It just works great!

No configuration work! No scripting! Almost easier than Windoze to set up
;-) (and working well though ;-)) !

Kind Regards,

Stephan Hachinger


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Percival <linux@percival.org>
> To: Stephan Hachinger <Stephan.Hachinger@gmx.de>
> Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: SMB printing problems
>
>
> >
> > This isn't a solution to your particular problem, but I had similar
> difficulties setting up SMB, until I found SWAT.  I try to run a secure
box,
> so I have to start swat only when I need it, but once you figure swat out
> (easier) then smb is simple to configure.  It is a Debian package.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 10:55:20AM +0100, Stephan Hachinger wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I've been trying to set up printing via SMB to an Epson Stylus Color
600
> > > printer (//stephan/stylus600). The smbprint works when I call it with
> > > "smbprint <filename>". So, I wanted that the lpd sends the files to
the
> > > filter epson-filter-remote, which filters them with a magicfilter and
> then
> > > sends them to smbprint.
> > >
> > > But I did not succeed, although I tried to set it up according to some
> hints
> > > given in the debian-user archive.
> > >
> > > I attached my configuration files with their directories in a tar.gz.
> file.
> > > Can anyone please help me how to set it up? I'm currently using lpr
> 5.9-29
> > > (from hamm, I think) under a mixed slink/potato (glibc 2.1) system.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Stephan Hachinger
> >
> >
>


Reply to: