From owner-freebsd-current Sat Nov 20 14: 2:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB7B14C8F; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 14:02:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA94904; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:02:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:04:04 -0500 To: current@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Fixes for lpd/lpc (printing), before 3.4? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Back when we were closing in on the release date for 3.3, I sent the following message. As we now close in on the release date for 3.4, I thought I'd send it again, seeing that both of the problem reports are still marked "open", and neither of the two patches have been applied yet. (not even to current) These are both pretty tiny minor lovable cuddly changes... Any chance of getting them in for 3.4? Note that problem report bin/12912 probably depends on what umask is set when lpd starts up. The pr says "the problem doesn't seem to be reproducible", but reproducing the problem may depend on someone making a change elsewhere. Given that lpd uses the actual access-bit settings to govern it's behavior, then it should make sure the exactly-correct bit settings are set up when it creates the file. Also note that the fix for bin/9362, sent in as bin/13549, is also confirmed in bin/14975. >Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:14:55 -0500 >To: current@FreeBSD.org >From: Garance A Drosihn >Subject: Two fixes for lpd/lpc (printing) >Cc: kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de > >I noticed problem-report bin/9362, which reported that the >'lpc start' command no longer works. (it claims to start >the queue, but it doesn't actually start it). > >I came up with a two or three line fix for that bug, and >sent it in as problem-report bin/13549. This patch should >work on both freebsd-current and freebsd-stable. > >I also noticed problem report bin/12912. This PR includes >a patch to make sure that if a lockfile does not already >exist, then it will be created such that the queue is both >"enabled" and "started". I have not tried this exact patch >yet, but here at RPI we've had a similar patch to lpd for a >long time. We add printer queues to a master printcap file, >which is then copied to a few hundred workstations. We really >don't want to have to run around all those workstations to >'enable' and 'start' a queue that we have just added. Perhaps >we have a different 'umask' setting when lpd starts up than >most freebsd sites do... > >Could some other people try these simple patches, and see >how well they work? I am hoping these could make it into >the next official release, although I realize that time is >rapidly running out for that! :-) --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message