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

Re: CUPS broadcasting print queue availability



On 2010-04-03 04:15, Liam O'Toole wrote:
On 2010-04-03, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
Hi,

I did this once a *long* time ago, but don't remember how. Also, I've read the (seemingly relevant sections of the sorely lacking) CUPS SAM, and Googled around to no avail.

My server has a print queue that looks like this:
$ lpstat -v
device for Dell_3100cn: socket://192.168.1.11
device for Dell_3100cn@haggis: socket://192.168.1.11
device for PDF: cups-pdf:/

The server's /etc/cups/cupsd.conf looks like:
Browsing On
BrowseOrder allow,deny
BrowseAllow 192.168.1.0/24
BrowseAddress 192.168.1.255
BrowseLocalProtocols CUPS dnssd
DefaultAuthType Basic
<Location />
   Allow from 192.168.1.*
   Order allow,deny
</Location>

I got broadcasting to work by setting BrowseAddress to the IP address of
the interface to broadcast on.

Do you mean haggis' IP address???

                               Alternatively you can use the notation
@IF(eth1) or similar.

That's doable!

                       On a dual-homed server, I also find it necessary
fot the cups daemon to listen on all interfaces, even though
broadcasting is only done on one. Hardly intuitive.

I created this on the client:
$ cat /etc/cups/cups.conf
ServerName haggis


Shouldn't cups on the server (haggis) be broadcasting network messages announcing the availability of it's print queues, and shouldn't some program from cups-client be listening?

Or do even client computers need the cups server package?

No, you can simply hard-code the name of the cups server in the file
/etc/cups/client.conf on the client.

Did that...

                                      You can then remove the cups
package on the client, but ensure that cups-client remains.


So, the cups server package must be installed on the client during configuration, but can be removed afterward?

--
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak
or the timid."  Dwight Eisenhower


Reply to: