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

Re: lp print queue unclearable



First in a console type lpstat -o and get a listing of any print jobs still in the que. Then as root type cancel and the name of the print job. If example on mine a job gets stuck as BJC240-0 type cancel BJC240-0. Watch case sensitive. If all else fails turn off your printer then delete everything in the /var/spool/lpr directory. That is where all your print jobs reside. It won't hurt anything to do this. I do this whenever setting up my printer because my canon BJC240 takes a different print driver to work right and I rarely get it right on the first try. By the way, the sound of it it sounds like your printer isn't using the right print driver either. Try using cups. It has a better selection of print drivers and fairly easy to administer.

Nori Heikkinen wrote:
on Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:05:30PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson insinuated:

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 06:56:36PM -0500, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
| i haven't used my printer in a bit, but usually it's just fine.  but
| now, trying to print a letter, i find that some mysterious print queue
| appears to be full.  i /etc/init.d restart lpd several times, making
| sure there are no zombies; i lprm *; yet whenever i turn on the
                              ^^^^^^
Not going to work.  Things like '*' are shell metacharacters.  This
means the _shell_ is the one that handles expanding them into their
actual meaning.  Thus "lprm *" in a directory containing files foo
and bar is the same as typing "lprm foo bar".  Unless print jobs
with ids "foo" and "bar" exist, that doesn't do what you meant.
Instead, type 'lpstat' (or 'lpq') and see what job ids exist.  Then
'lprm' those particular ids.  If you want to get fancy, then you
could devise a pipe from lpq to lprm which would remove all jobs
automatically.


good point -- but i was abbreviating, and forgot that the shell '*'
didn't expand in that context.

lpq is totally empty, but still it prints garbage.

</nori>





Reply to: