What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing =
disabled"
Though, I guess it would only have an effect when put in the global
section.
Vance Lankhaar
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 10:19, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In some recent work that I was doing, I detected that Samba uses a
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Vance Lankhaar wrote:
> What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing =
> disabled"
This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
do so?
> Though, I guess it would only have an effect when put in the global
> section.
>
> Vance
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:54:37AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Vance Lankhaar wrote:
>
> > What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing =
> > disabled"
>
> This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
> do so?
Why do we need
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:54:37AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Vance Lankhaar wrote:
> >
> > > What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing =
> > > disabled"
> >
> > This seems like a good way to do it. Does an
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:54:37AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Vance Lankhaar wrote:
> >
> > > What about adding a value to the printing param? -> "printing =
> > > disabled"
> >
> > This seems like a good way to do it. Does an
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:53PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
> > > do so?
> >
> > Why do we need it? Just call lp_default_server_announce() and check if
> > the SV_TYPE_PRINTQ_SERVER bit is set. If no print shar
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:53PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> > > > This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
> > > > do so?
> > >
> > > Why do we need it? Just call lp_default_server_announce() and check if
> > > th
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:25:27PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
> > It's fixed in HEAD.
>
> Yeah, well someone forgot their janitorial duties :-)
I take it that means 3.0 and HEAD will be seeing your
cli_XXX 64 bit fixes shortly. :-) :-) :-).
Jeremy.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:25:27PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > > > This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
> > > > > do so?
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need it? Just call lp_default_server_announce() and check if
> > > > the SV_TYPE_PRINTQ_SERVER bit is se
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:46:28PM +1100, Tim Potter wrote:
>
> There's an interesting story about that. (-: At the time I fixed this
> problem we were in "don't touch the 2.2 branch unless it is a critical
> bug fix", and also in "this will be the last version of 2.2 for sure"
> mode.
>
> I gu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tim Potter wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:10:53PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> >
> > > > > This seems like a good way to do it. Does anyone have any objections if I
> > > >
11 matches
Mail list logo