CUPS and Slack 12.1
Marv Soloff
Installed Slack 12.1 on its own drive last weekend. Nice, clean
installation. Installed OpenOffice
2.4 from the Linuxpackages distribution. So far, so good. Now, my
current problem is getting
my Samsung ML 1210 onto Slack 12.1. It works under CUPS in Slack 10.2
so it should theoretically
work in Slack 12.1. I have it pointed to parport0 (lp0) which appears to
be correct. However, it
does not print. Error files tell me I do not have permission to use
"parport0". Is this part of the new
Hardware Abstraction Layer stuff or part of udev or what? I was not
aware that I had to have permission
to use the /dev stuff.
Marv
Matt Hayes
Are you part of the lp group?
-Matt
Marv Soloff
I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp group?
Marv
Eef Hartman
>> Are you part of the lp group?
>>
>> -Matt
>
> I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp group?
As far as I know "cupsd" has exclusive access to the device and IT
runs under a non-root UID, with group "lp", so the device should
have read/write access to group "lp".
--
********************************************************************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
** e-mail: E.J.M....@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
********************************************************************
No_One
I don't use cups, however, you might want to check out the faq/tutorial
about installing cups on slack at www.usrlocal.com....might give you a hint.
ken
Marv Soloff
> Marv Soloff <mso...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>Are you part of the lp group?
>>>
>>>-Matt
>>
>>I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp group?
>
>
> As far as I know "cupsd" has exclusive access to the device and IT
> runs under a non-root UID, with group "lp", so the device should
> have read/write access to group "lp".
Will look into it. Strange. Thanks!
Marv
The Immortal One
"Marv Soloff" <mso...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lC6Xj.2187$za1.597@trndny07...
Hmmm, howcome OSX and Windoze doesn't have all these silly little problems?
Two Ravens
> I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp group?
The general concensus seems to be that working as root is not 'best
practice'.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."
Steven J Masta
They do, but they rely on the equipment vendors to solve the problems
and provide new drivers. People expect linux distros to include every
driver for every device ever made even though the vendors provide
little, if any, assistance at all.
Steve
Marv Soloff
> Marv Soloff wrote:
>
>
>>I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp group?
>
>
> The general concensus seems to be that working as root is not 'best
> practice'.
The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack 3.6
with only one case
of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of that was recoverable.
Marv
No_One
Running as a regular user - as opposed to root - is the electronic equivalent
of wearing a seat belt, ya just never know.
ken
Dan C
>> The general concensus seems to be that working as root is not 'best
>> practice'.
> The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack 3.6
> with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of
> that was recoverable.
n00b.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Two Ravens
> The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack
> 3.6 with only one case
> of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of that was
> recoverable.
>
> Marv
Marv Soloff and 'Tom Newton', synchronised swimming against the tide.
Life would be boring if we were all the same.
Joost Kremers
> The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack 3.6
> with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of
> that was recoverable.
the general consensus is also that one particular case does not prove the
rule. huzzah that so far it hasn't bitten you. the day may come, however,
that you wish you had joined the general consensus.
--
Joost Kremers joostk...@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)
Marv Soloff
> Marv Soloff wrote:
>
>>The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack 3.6
>>with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of
>>that was recoverable.
>
>
> the general consensus is also that one particular case does not prove the
> rule. huzzah that so far it hasn't bitten you. the day may come, however,
> that you wish you had joined the general consensus.
>
>
Why not? What bad is going
to happen? Will my computer crash? Too bad. Hey guys, come on - the
PC stands for "personal computer". I prefer to live out there on the
edge running as root. The general consensus about Slackware (and UNIX
based OS in general) is that it is an elitist affair and mere mortals
should not indulge and/or interfere. There are huge flame wars here and
much name calling and yet no one in the Slackware community has been
able to make a universal printer program that works out of the box. Just
one example. I use my five computers as tools. I don't need to spend
twelve hours a day dicking around with the OS to make it do what
Microsoft does out of the box.
Understood? Now - back to the original question - in Slack 12.1 how to
I patch to software to make
the CUPS system recognize jobs coming from root?
Marv
Marv Soloff
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:41:17 +0000, Marv Soloff wrote:
>
>
>>>The general concensus seems to be that working as root is not 'best
>>>practice'.
>
>
>
>>The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack 3.6
>>with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up, most of
>>that was recoverable.
>
>
> n00b.
>
>
Marv
Michael Black
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Marv Soloff wrote:
> computers as tools. I don't need to spend
> twelve hours a day dicking around with the OS to make it do what Microsoft
> does out of the box.
This is a common mistake. Linux is not an operating system for people
who want a "free" version of Windows. It's a completely different
operating system, based on Unix, another completely different from Windows
operating system that's almost forty years old, that has its own criteria
for design and implemtnation. There are lots of good reason to choose
Linux, and even "because it's not Windows" is actually one of them. But,
don't expect it to be a "Free Windows".
> Understood? Now - back to the original question - in Slack 12.1 how to I
> patch to software to make
> the CUPS system recognize jobs coming from root?
>
Didn't this come up just last week?
Once again, if it won't run as root, then don't expect help. The software
is telling you not to run as root, so it makes it hard for you to do that.
People are likely more interested in fixing things that run as root than
in making sure things will run as root.
Michael
Dan C
> There seems to be this general shibboleth "Thou shalt not run as root:"
> Why not? What bad is going to happen?
This has been explained to n00bs like you a thousand times, both here and
elsewhere. Expend your own effort to go learn why.
> much name calling and yet no one in the Slackware community has been
> able to make a universal printer program that works out of the box.
CUPS works just fine "out of the box", for those not running as root.
> one example. I use my five computers as tools. I don't need to spend
> twelve hours a day dicking around with the OS to make it do what
> Microsoft does out of the box.
Then go use Micro$haft, doofus.
> Understood? Now - back to the original question - in Slack 12.1 how to
> I patch to software to make the CUPS system recognize jobs coming from
> root?
You don't, n00b.
Marv Soloff
it. Unix is however, showing
it's age. I also use XP because it does some things much better (less
hassle) than Linux/Slackware.
I posted the original question. And still waiting for some useful answer.
Marv
No_One
>
> I posted the original question. And still waiting for some useful answer.
>
> Marv
Simple enough -- Go to cups.org and ask there. Who would know better than
the developers.
ken
Marv Soloff
Thank you - give this man a zillion dollars.
Marv
Keith Keller
If you're not going to follow the advice of the general consensus, you
shouldn't expect the general consensus to be in a position to answer
your questions. (Either they don't wish to give you an answer, or they
genuinely don't know, since they don't have the same environment you
do.)
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Joost Kremers
> There seems to be this general shibboleth "Thou shalt not run as root:"
> Why not? What bad is going to happen?
what is going to happen is that it is much easier for an attacker to gain
root privileges on your machine. this is what happened with windows:
because that platform was set up to run with full control over the entire
machine, it became laughingly easy for attackers to target that platform.
(in fact, i often wonder if the entire scene of botnets, zombie computers,
viruses, trojans, spyware etc. would have developed to quite the same level
if it hadn't been so ridiculously easy to crack windows computers for so
many years...)
another thing that is bound to happen some day is that you as an admin make
a mistake and type 'rm * ~' instead of 'rm *~'. now, sure, if that is your
personal computer and you're the only one using it, and if you have
backups, what's the problem, you might think. but unix generally isn't
restricted to the desk- or laptop pc. if you're computer is used by others,
or if you're admin'ing a server with many users, you'll want to keep the
number of times you need to restore from backup to an absolute minimum.
sure, if you keep good backups (and you should) a snafu isn't going to hurt
that much. but it is annoying, and the annoyance gets worse the more users
depend on the machine in question.
Marv Soloff
machines - they are stand
alones and not networked - the 9.1 (I think it was 9.1) machine ran
nearly three years without
a problem until the HD crapped out. I had timed backups so I lost nothing.
Marv
Two Ravens
> ...There are huge flame wars here and much name calling...
He had also written
>>>The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack
>>>3.6 with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up,
>>>most of that was recoverable.
>>
>> n00b.
>>
> Idiot.
If you don't like the, "huge flame wars", and, "name calling", it might
be better not to engage in the name calling.
Mark Madsen
> Marv Soloff wrote:
>> There seems to be this general shibboleth "Thou shalt not run as root:"
>> Why not? What bad is going to happen?
>
> what is going to happen is that it is much easier for an attacker to
> gain root privileges on your machine.
<snip>
Didn't you already explain all this to Marv when he posting as Tom Newton?
Michael Black
I think the score is that this is the third time in recent months this
sort of thing comes up. I thought someone had posted similarly in between
the two.
Michel
Marv Soloff
Newton. Everyone
knows that Tom Newton has a beard and wears granny glasses.
Marv
Marv Soloff
stop top posting
than commenting on my non-existent flame wars. Dan C posts "n00b", I
reply "Idiot".
Just an opening sally to test the ground. Hardly a flame.
Marv
Joost Kremers
> Didn't you already explain all this to Marv when he posting as Tom Newton?
nope. besides, i have no reason to assume they're one and the same person.
King Beowulf
I rather compare it to wearing a condom - 'cause you just never know....
--
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single
individual." --Galileo Galilei
No_One
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:55:51 -0500, No_One wrote:
>> Running as a regular user - as opposed to root - is the electronic
>> equivalent of wearing a seat belt, ya just never know.
>>
>> ken
>
> I rather compare it to wearing a condom - 'cause you just never know....
>
Trojans??!
ken
Michael Black
No, no, no. You're trying to avoid those.
Michael
Two Ravens
>> If you don't like the, "huge flame wars", and, "name calling", it
>> might be better not to engage in the name calling.
>>
> Come off it - I think you are better suited to admonishing people to
> stop top posting
> than commenting on my non-existent flame wars. Dan C posts "n00b", I
> reply "Idiot".
> Just an opening sally to test the ground. Hardly a flame.
As I wrote, if you don't like the, "name calling", then don't do it; "an
opening sally to test the ground", would seem to imply that there is to
follow an escalation.
Old Man
>
> Installed Slack 12.1 on its own drive last weekend. Nice, clean
> installation. Installed OpenOffice
> 2.4 from the Linuxpackages distribution. So far, so good. Now, my
> current problem is getting
> my Samsung ML 1210 onto Slack 12.1. It works under CUPS in Slack 10.2
> so it should theoretically
> work in Slack 12.1. I have it pointed to parport0 (lp0) which appears to
> be correct. However, it
> does not print. Error files tell me I do not have permission to use
> "parport0". Is this part of the new
> Hardware Abstraction Layer stuff or part of udev or what? I was not
> aware that I had to have permission
> to use the /dev stuff.
>
> Marv
I'm curious. Have you solved this?
As I said, I'm curious, so I did a couple of simple experiments. Using the
standard Slackware 12.1 stuff, I found I can print as my regular user, from
any of several apps, including Open Office. Logged in as root, I can print
from any of several apps, including Open Office, whether root belongs to
the lp group or not. So, I don't think your being logged in as root is
causing the problem.
Now, my printer is usb attached, not parallel port, so my printing device
is /dev/usblp0, which is a symlink to /dev/usb/lp0 (owned by root/lp).
These devices are created on the fly by udev if the printer is turned on,
and go away when it is turned off. Looking at dmesg and the /dev
directory, I find that I have a /dev/par0 which is a symlink to /dev/lp0
(owned by root/lp). Dmesg says "lp0: using parpart0 (polling)," but I have
no /dev/parport0. Maybe that's because I don't have any printer attached
to the parallel port?
I like a flame war as much as the next guy, but I think you have an
interesting problem, and I strongly suspect all the discussion of root
login is irrelevant. So, again, have you solved this? Do you actually
have a /dev/parport0? What are these "error files," specifically? And
what is the actual error message?
--
Old Man
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -
John Kenneth Galbraith
Marv Soloff
cupsd for openers, but the
cups error log tells me I do not have permissions to use parport0/lp0 -
this as root. Will
get back to this - too good a problem to let slide.
Marv
Marv Soloff
I posted the question on the CUPS board and got this answer:
For a number of reasons, I am running Slackware 12.1 as root. My
> > CUPS setup is correct but passing the print job to my printer is
> > denied because I am not part of the "lp"
> > group. How can I get CUPS to allow print requests to go to the
> > printer as root?
>
> Working permanently as root? Hm. There may be better ideas, but hey -
each=
> > to his own...
>
> have a look at your cupsd-config. Check "User lp" and "Group lp" settings
> as well as the "RunAsUser" entry (defines the user and group cupsd runs
> under), and check your "SystemGroup" entry (specifies the group that may
> administrate CUPS) - that may be set as "lp" but can of course also
be set=
> > to "root".
>
> Also have a look at the "AuthGroupName" setting (defines the group of
> users that can use the web interface) - in my default setup, that is set
> to "sys" while the "SystemGroup" has not been set, so in order to get to
> the admin interface, a user has to be member of the "sys" group instead.
> You may want to change that as well.
>
>
> Kind regards
> Gerard
>
>
>
>
> INFO Gesellschaft f=C3=BCr Informationssysteme AG
> Zentrale Hamburg
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Frank Winkler
> Vorstand: Ernst M=C3=BCller (Vorstandsvorsitzender), Stefan Freyer,
Holger =
> Sievers, Hannes Zeiner
> Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 36067=20
>
> INFO Business Systems GmbH
> Zentrale Hamburg
> Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrung: Ernst M=C3=BCller, Holger Sievers
> Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 66606
>
I have not had the time to try these fixes but will over the remainder
of the week.
Marv
dillinger
>
> Installed Slack 12.1 on its own drive last weekend. Nice, clean
> installation. Installed OpenOffice
> 2.4 from the Linuxpackages distribution. So far, so good. Now, my
> current problem is getting
> my Samsung ML 1210 onto Slack 12.1. It works under CUPS in Slack 10.2
> so it should theoretically
> work in Slack 12.1. I have it pointed to parport0 (lp0) which appears to
> be correct. However, it
> does not print. Error files tell me I do not have permission to use
> "parport0". Is this part of the new
> Hardware Abstraction Layer stuff or part of udev or what? I was not
> aware that I had to have permission
> to use the /dev stuff.
>
> Marv
FWIW, my slack 12.1 has no /dev/parport0, it has /dev/par0, which is a
link to /dev/lp0.
My slack 11.0 computer, where my printer is connected, has
/dev/parport0, but cups uses /dev/lp0.
You could try to point cups directly to lp0 or par0.
I can print as root from the console (lp loadlin16c.txt).
Michel.
Old Man
> > have a look at your cupsd-config. Check "User lp" and "Group lp"
> > settings as well as the "RunAsUser" entry (defines the user and group
> > cupsd runs under), and check your "SystemGroup" entry (specifies the
> > group that may administrate CUPS) - that may be set as "lp" but can of
> > course also
> be set=
> > > to "root".
This sort of makes sense, but ...
The default user is lp, and is not changed in slack's cupsd.conf.
On a clean install of 12.1 the lp user belongs to the lp group.
If cups runs as user lp, and the devices have read/write access from group
lp, messing with cupsd.conf this way should not be necessary.
The default SystemGroup is admin. Slack's cupsd.conf sets is to sys (and
root). In Slackware, root belongs to the sys group, so again, no change
should be needed.
> >
> > Also have a look at the "AuthGroupName" setting (defines the group of
> > users that can use the web interface) - in my default setup, that is
> > set to "sys" while the "SystemGroup" has not been set, so in order to
> > get to the admin interface, a user has to be member of the "sys" group
> > instead. You may want to change that as well.
AuthGroupName is deprecated in favor of Require. Slackware does "Require
user @SYSTEM," meaning the user must belong to SystemGroup (sys). Again,
it should not be necessary to change anything.
Are you by any chance using any config files you brought over from 10.2?
> I have not had the time to try these fixes but will over the remainder
> of the week.
--
The Real Bev
> Two Ravens wrote:
>> Marv Soloff wrote:
>>
>>> I am working as root - does "root" need to be part of the lp
>>> group?
FWIW, my cheap Samsung laser printer came with linux installation stuff
(CUPS, which I hadn't used before) right on the official CD. I sent
them a thank you note.
>> The general concensus seems to be that working as root is not 'best
>> practice'.
>
> The general consensus may be wrong. I have run as root since Slack
> 3.6 with only one case of catastrophic failure, and since I back up,
> most of that was recoverable.
Me too, in spite of JWZ's predictions. The only disasters I've
encountered are inexplicable and probably hardware-caused crashes before
I learned how to fsck properly. OTOH, upgrading is traumatic.
--
Cheers,
Bev
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing
with psychotics. -- A. Dingley
Dan C
> ...before I learned how to fsck properly.
Mmmmmmmmm, I love it when a Linux chick says stuff like that.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Chick Tower
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:28:38 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> ...before I learned how to fsck properly.
>
> Mmmmmmmmm, I love it when a Linux chick says stuff like that.
Really? What would you like to hear ME say, Dan?
:)
--
Chick Tower
For e-mail: aols2 DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net
Dan C
>>> ...before I learned how to fsck properly.
>> Mmmmmmmmm, I love it when a Linux chick says stuff like that.
> Really? What would you like to hear ME say, Dan?
> :)
LOL! Well, somehow I never associated you as a female, in spite of the
(nick)name. So you can say whatever you'd like, and it won't have much
effect on me... ;)
Chick Tower
> LOL! Well, somehow I never associated you as a female, in spite of the
> (nick)name....
Such an association would be incorrect.
Dan C
>> LOL! Well, somehow I never associated you as a female, in spite of the
>> (nick)name....
> Such an association would be incorrect.
OK..... trying to keep the word-twisting straight here.... Yes. Right.
An association between you and female would be incorrect, so that makes
you a non-female. Right? ;?
Michael Black
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:34:30 -0400, Chick Tower wrote:
>
>>> LOL! Well, somehow I never associated you as a female, in spite of the
>>> (nick)name....
>
>> Such an association would be incorrect.
>
> OK..... trying to keep the word-twisting straight here.... Yes. Right.
> An association between you and female would be incorrect, so that makes
> you a non-female. Right? ;?
>
Surely logic can reinforce that. Why would someone reveal themselves as
female by using "chick"?
Plus, there are instances of "chick" as a man's name. Chick Young did
the "Blondie" comic strip, though apparently it was "Chic". But there
is Chick Corea, who plays jazz piano.
Michael
loki harfagr
notwithstanding elemental logics like "non-female" is not
an exact opposite to "", oh shit fuck marY jeeZ lalA woteveR,
this is such a bore that even lowlife like we have to
reckon the room's all yours.
Dan C
> notwithstanding elemental logics like "non-female" is not
> an exact opposite to "", oh shit fuck marY jeeZ lalA woteveR,
> this is such a bore that even lowlife like we have to
> reckon the room's all yours.
Christ, one of these days you'll have to tell us exactly what it is that
you smoke before posting. Wow.
notbob
> Christ, one of these days you'll have to tell us exactly what it is that
> you smoke before posting. Wow.
</modquote>
lol...
He's like you, Dan. One of a kind and all ours. ;)
nb
loki harfagr
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:28 +0000, loki harfagr wrote:
>
>> notwithstanding elemental logics like "non-female" is not an exact
>> opposite to "", oh shit fuck marY jeeZ lalA woteveR, this is such a
>> bore that even lowlife like we have to reckon the room's all yours.
>
> Christ, one of these days you'll have to tell us exactly what it is that
> you smoke before posting. Wow.
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 49 years, Dan C, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."
(after 'Elwood P. Dowd' in "Harvey")
Chick Tower
> OK..... trying to keep the word-twisting straight here.... Yes. Right.
> An association between you and female would be incorrect, so that makes
> you a non-female. Right? ;?
Correct.
loki harfagr
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:46:07 -0500, Dan C wrote:
>
>> OK..... trying to keep the word-twisting straight here.... Yes.
>> Right. An association between you and female would be incorrect, so
>> that makes you a non-female. Right? ;?
>
> Correct.
probably not, or you mean that you're an 'it' and not a '[s]he',
count down your type, a male is a female with a slight abberation
of a gene caused by an overdose of SRY protein ;-)
in short for Dr C. there's no such thing as 'non-female' for
mammalians (as I supposed Chick, you and me were :D)