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

Re: HPLIP - upgrade to 3.20.0 and can no longer print.



On 2020-03-04 at 08:44, Brad Rogers wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Is anybody else having issues with hplip 3.20.0?  The upgrade
> resulted in me not being able to print anything.  Jobs were,
> apparently, being sent to the printer (its display panel lit up, to
> indicate that there was something about to happen), but the jobs
> never completed and eventually timed out with a communication error.

I don't have hplip installed (which is a bit surprising, I had thought
that I did), but this post brought to mind a changelog message I saw in
a semi-recent upgrade.

Checking ~/mbox for the key word I half-remembered finds that it was in
the upgrade of cups to 2.3.1-5. The changelog entry for that version
reads:

>> cups (2.3.1-5) unstable; urgency=medium
>> 
>>   * Move towards driverless-centered installation:
>>     - Drop all printer-driver-* and hplip recommends/suggests
>>   * Cleanup all versions from pre- Debian stable
>>   * Bump S-V to 4.5.0 without changes needed
>> 
>>  -- Didier Raboud <odyx@debian.org>  Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:08:48 +0100

and because of that plus this:

<snip>

> The report that CUPS is missing / non-functional strikes me as
> weird, because it *is* installed and runs.  Again, despite the
> report, cups-bsd and cups-client are both installed.  I even tried
> installing as many of the missing packages as possible when running
> 3.20.0 to no avail.

I wonder whether this might therefore be the result of a change in cups,
rather than in hplip.

I haven't actually had occasion to try printing since that package
upgrade, so I don't know whether it's produced any behavior change on my
end.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: