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

Re: Re (2): CUPS, "Add Printer Error".



On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM,  <peasthope@shaw.ca> wrote:
> From:   "John L. Cunningham" <djohngo@gmail.com>
> Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:32:43 -0400
>> ... make sure lpadmin is actually set as the administrator user group.
>
> peter@dalton:~$ grep lpadmin /etc/cups/cupsd.conf
> SystemGroup lpadmin
> peter@dalton:~$ grep lpadmin /etc/group
> lpadmin:x:112:peter
>
> Here are some lines from /var/log/cups/error_log
> D [06/Jun/2013:10:42:35 -0700] update_cups_browse: Refused 212 bytes from 172.24.1.1
> D [06/Jun/2013:10:42:44 -0700] cupsdAcceptClient: 16 from 172.24.1.1:631 (IPv4)
> D [06/Jun/2013:10:42:44 -0700] cupsdReadClient: 16 POST /admin/ HTTP/1.1
> D [06/Jun/2013:10:42:44 -0700] cupsdSetBusyState: newbusy="Active clients", busy="Not busy"
> D [06/Jun/2013:10:42:44 -0700] cupsdAuthorize: No authentication data provided.
>
> Under Squeeze, I wasn't in the lpadmin group but whenever an
> adminstrative task was attempted a simple authenication dialogue
> appeared.  After authentication as root, administration was allowed.
> Under Wheezy, no dialogue appears.  So I'd wonder that CUPS
> seeks authentication but can't obtain it.
>
> Was the authentication service which CUPS relies upon broken
> or removed in the grade from Squeeze to Wheezy?  The dialogue
> was a drab rectangle with fields for user and password.  Can
> anyone tell what software made that?  Otherwise I'll set up
> an old Squeeze system and work to identify it.

This is not responsive to your precise question, but here's what I
believe to be the relevant section of my /etc/cups/cupsd.conf, which
you might compare with yours (I'm still getting the authentication
dialog on an updated testing system):

DefaultAuthType Basic
WebInterface Yes
<Location />
  Order allow,deny
</Location>
<Location /admin>
  Order allow,deny
</Location>
<Location /admin/conf>
  AuthType Default
  Require user @SYSTEM
  Order allow,deny
</Location>

Patrick


Reply to: