Re: Printing to a Hewlett Packard Jet Direct card
- To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Printing to a Hewlett Packard Jet Direct card
- From: Ray Olszewski <ray@comarre.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:32:44 -0700
- Message-id: <2.2.32.20000524033244.00ceda28@[192.168.1.23]>
I've used a LaserJet 4M with JetDirect for years, and I assume a JetDirect
card on one HP printer is pretty much the same as another. Here are the
printcap entries I use:
ascii|caxton_ascii:\
:lp=:\
:rm=caxton:\
:rp=text:\
:lf=/var/spool/lpd/ERRORLOG:\
:sd=/var/spool/lpd/caxton_ascii:
raw|caxton_raw:\
:lp=:\
:rm=caxton:\
:rp=raw:\
:lf=/var/spool/lpd/ERRORLOG:\
:sd=/var/spool/lpd/caxton_raw:
Aside from my using a resolvable hostname instead of an address in rm=, the
only real difference I can see is in our lp= entries. Mine works; I can't
figure out whether yours should or not.
Aside from that, I always follow the practice of running lpr as
lpr -Pprinter_name file_name
not, as you do
lpr -P printer_name file_name
Again, I don't know if this difference is consequential or not.
At 05:57 PM 5/23/00 -0500, A. Scott White wrote:
>I am trying to set my Debian box to print to an HP LJ-8000 with a Jet Direct
>card. has anyone ever done this?
>
>I want the name of the printer to be surgery. Assuming 111.222.333.444 is
>the IP of the Jet Direct card, here is my current setup:
>
>printcap:
>#========================================
>lp|surgery|Surgery:\
> :lp=/dev/null:sh:\
> :sd=/var/spool/lpd/surgery:\
> :rm=111.222.333.444:rp=raw:
>surgery-text:\
> :lp=/dev/null:sh:\
> :sd=/var/spool/lpd/surgery-text:\
> :rm=111.222.333.444:rp=text:
>#========================================
>
>If I enter the command line:
>
>lpr -P surgery-text myfile.txt
>
>or:
>
>lpr -P surgery mypsfile.ps
>
>I get nothing. If I check lpq, it shows that a job was processed by the
>queue, but nothing comes out of the printer.
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA ray@comarre.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: