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. -- Brian.