|Summary:||Deskjet 600C on /dev/lp0 still not probed after updating /etc/conf.modules. Printer subsystem not starting so 'lpc' gets "connection refused"|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Tom Gagne <tgagne>|
|Component:||lpr||Assignee:||Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero>|
|Status:||CLOSED WORKSFORME||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||1999-11-28 18:34:53 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Tom Gagne 1999-11-28 12:45:44 UTC
I've read the printer bugs and the recommended add to /etc/conf.modules (alias par something or other). After doing that I rebooted and I still get the error trying to add my printer that no printers were found on /dev/lp0-2. Then, when I went back into Bugzilla I couldn't get any of my queries to work and suddenly doubted how I got in there the first time! So, I'm submitting another bug report.
Comment 1 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 1999-11-28 14:12:59 UTC
Make sure the printer port is activated and set to the correct mode (EPP or Bidirectional should do) in the BIOS.
Comment 2 Tom Gagne 1999-11-28 16:11:59 UTC
The BIOS were cet to something like ECB, but I changed it to EPP1.9 and loaded the latest lpr from rawhide (1.47, I think) and when trying to add a printer I still get complaints that no devices were discovered on /dev/lp0, /dev/lp1, /dev/lp2. I haven't checked w95 since switching to epp, but my printer does (did) work over there, and on RHat 5.1. I discovered the reason my bugzilla query didn't work was I set the arch to ALL, thinking it would show me lpr bugs on ALL architectures, but instead it only shows lpr bugs affecting ALL archs.
Comment 3 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 1999-11-28 16:17:59 UTC
Please send me a copy of your /etc/conf.modules and /etc/printcap, and the output of "ls -l /dev/lp0" and "lsmod" after trying to print.
Comment 5 Tom Gagne 1999-11-28 18:31:59 UTC
ls -l /dev/lp0 0 crw-rw---- 1 root daemon 6, 0 May 5 1998 /dev/lp0 Also, how is it you can receive an attachment from a form? Seems insecure. I would much rather have been able to email a reply with the file attached.
Comment 6 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 1999-11-28 18:34:59 UTC
Your /etc/conf.modules is broken. It's parport_lowlevel, not parpart_lowlevel. Receiving attachments over a form is some Netscape feature, I think. Netscape transfers the filename you give it to the server. Yes, it is insecure, that's why I didn't ask you to attach your /etc/shadow. ;)
Comment 7 Tom Gagne 1999-11-29 01:03:59 UTC
Thank you very much. If I'm going to have a typo pointed out to me I'd rather it happen quickly (and politely) then not. Thanks again.