Re: [cups-devel] CUPS_PRINTER_REMOTE for automatically added printers on Linux

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Helge Blischke <helgeblischke-S0/[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> Read the manual page for
> cups-browsed.conf
> There are some directives which control which kind of printers are added under which conditions.

Thanks Helge, that actually helped me fix the original situation,
although not how I was expecting when started to read the manual: I
hoped I could find some configuration option that would make a
difference, but while doing so I decided to compare the
cups-browsed.conf file from my Endless and my Fedora machines and
found they were different... because they belong to different versions
of the cups-filters package!

On Endless I had cups-filters 1.11.6 while on Fedora I had 1.16.4, and
from what I see in the NEWS file and in the util/cups-browserd.*
files, there are quite some differences: for instance, there's now a
new `CreateRemoteCUPSPrinterQueues` parameter (set to `1` by default)
and `CreateIPPPrinterQueues` now defaults to `LocalOnly`, which might
have something to do although I'm not 100% yet as it seems there has
been quite a lot of changes related to cups-browsed and the detection
of network/shared printers since 1.11.6, so maybe it's something else
in there.

What I can tell is that I'm not getting the annoying notifications
anymore after upgrading to cups-filters 1.16.4, and that gdb now
reports that all those printers have the CUPS_PRINTER_REMOTE and
CUPS_PRINTER_DISCOVERED flags set (and the CUPS_PRINTER_NOT_SHARED is
not set now), which is what helps gnome-settings-daemon determine they
are not local printers, thus avoiding the notification.

Last, FWIW, I've tried playing with different values of
`CreateRemoteCUPSPrinterQueues` and `CreateIPPPrinterQueues` in the
cups-browsed.conf file, to see if I could reproduce the issue I've
observed before, but I couldn't, so I'm not sure if I was indeed
experiencing a bug that got fixed in 1.16.4, or whether I'm not
configuring cups-browsed correctly.

Either way the problem is fixed, which is good (thanks!). Now, if I
only could understand why exactly... please let me know if you have
any clear idea on why that might be the case, I'd love to get to the
bottom of this.

Thanks!
Mario