From: Michele Andreoli ([email protected])
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 10:49:06 CEST
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Sven Conrad nicely wrote:
>
>
> Michele Andreoli wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Sven. Only a note: think you plip.o is conflicting with lp.o?
> > In this case, I think it is better if the .fun script remove the
> > standard parallel port module lp.o, or the port is busy.
> >
> Yes you are right. plip conflicts with lp. But I use this in
> an old mu where lp is not loaded, when it is not configured.
> Is there a usfull way to configure printer support and plip
> at the same time?
No: in old kernel, lp.o do port blocking.
I compiled LP support as module for this problem. But if in setup/port
you leave PRINTER_DEVICE=/dev/null, this module is not loaded.
>Or should we write plip and lp in such a
> way that they allways remove the other one, so that setup plip
> and setup lp can be used from console to switch between them?
>
It is enough if setup/plip remove lp.o silenty.
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET