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

Re: repeat of previous question that has gone unansweredseveraltimes.

On Mon 01 May 2023 at 13:22:47 -0400, gene heskett wrote:

> On 5/1/23 12:30, Brian wrote:


> > The -l option asks the queue for the specific options it offers. The response
> > indicates something wrong with CUPS on bpi51. I haven't any problem when doing
> > this and getting sensible outputs on my Debian unstable machine.
> Which isn't quite a 1:1 comparison as that will be bookworm shortly.
> Or, should I update the bullseyes to unstable? IDK and I'm not even sure
> how...

Forget about doing that. I was merely commenting that my Debian did not
behave like yours. Is yours a fruit-flavoured varian?

> > Assuming your buster machines (which are working) have similar setups to bpi51,
> Which is a bullseye machine. And has a totally different content to the
> /etc/cups directory as shown by my last post, much more complex on the
> bullseye installs that don't work.

THe difference is highly likely to be relevant. You are grasping at straws.

> > you couls try the two commands (and all the others in this thread) on one of
> > those.
> > 
> I'd think I could start by comparing cupsd.conf's, but miss And I can't see
> the trees for all this forest in the way in both, but missing is a
> client.conf. I think... But that is probably whats wrong, me thinking.

A client.conf is unneeded on a well-behaved CUPS system that obtains info
from avahi-daemon.


Reply to: