Patrick Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I thought of about 4 ways to do this, ranging from simple to > hideously complex.
First of all, wow. First post after months of lurking, and an immediate reply by the great master himself. Kudos! > I assume that you are using SAMBA to interface to the UNIX > system. If you are, the following needs to be used, as SAMBA > does not support 'wildcard' printers: This, however, is a wrong assumption. As you can see in my little ASCII drawing (well, maybe it wasn't as clear as I thought): >> [printer] >> | >> [Windows Box]-----------------LPD----------------->[Lexmark Box] >> | >> [printer1] The Windows box is already speaking to the LPD on the Lexmark box, sending a completely processed PCL printjob with PJL headers (which is why I don't see a need for IFHP). I would like to plug the Linux box right inbetween the two, and just use LPR, so there's no need for SAMBA and IFHP, from my understanding. (I would like to keep complexity as low as possible -- of course, if you tell me using SAMBA and IFHP is the way to go, then I'll listen to your expert advice). > PRINTCAP: > .common:sd=/var/spool/lpd/%P:filter=/usr/local/libexec/ifhp > lexbox1-printer1-tray1:tc=.common:lp=printer1 > :ifhp=model=hp4,outbin=tray1 > lexbox1-printer1-tray2:tc=.common:lp=printer1 > :ifhp=model=hp4,outbin=tray2 > lexbox1-printer1-tray3:tc=.common:lp=printer1 > :ifhp=model=hp4,outbin=tray3 [snip] This is exactly something I was trying to avoid. I was looking for a fully variable-based printcap, so I don't have to edit it whenever there's a change on the Windows side (New IP for existing box, new box, whatever...). Is this possible? (Additional side note: From my understanding, the jobs shouldn't be spooled (again) on the Linux box.) [snip] > printer1:tc=.common:lp=192.168.1.1%9100 We're using ip:lpd_printer_name to address the boxes, not port numbers. Should work quite the same though, right? [snip] > An alternative to this is to use: [snip] > :incoming_control_filter=/usr/local/libexec/fixup I assume the "incoming_control_filter" is due to the ifhp syntax? Or are the docs I have available out of date, as I thought I am supposed to use filter=/path/to/program? [snip] > If you do not want to use IFHP, then modification of the 'fixup' filter is left > as an execise for the student :-) :-) I'm not sure yet as to how to proceed, but I think the sample script you included contains some valuable additions to the one I came up with, so I guess I will incorporate these :-D Kind Regards, Stefan Baur ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- YOU MUST BE A LIST MEMBER IN ORDER TO POST TO THE LPRNG MAILING LIST The address you post from MUST be your subscription address If you need help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or lprng-requests or lprng-digest-requests) with the word 'help' in the body. For the impatient, to subscribe to a list with name LIST, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with: | example: subscribe LIST <mailaddr> | subscribe lprng-digest [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe LIST <mailaddr> | unsubscribe lprng [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have major problems, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word LPRNGLIST in the SUBJECT line. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
