[Samba] Using parameters in lpq command conflicts with background

[Jerry Askew]

Thank you for the response.  After some further investigation, I discovered
that Samba 3.0.3 behaves correctly (i.e. the %U substitution works).  Samba
3.0.7 is ignoring the %U substitution.  This would fit in with your comment
about jumping to 3.0.6.  Will someone likely be addressing this issue, or
would it be proper for me to make a propsed fix and submit the diff?

Oh - and my apologies for submitting quoted-printable (i.e. the wide-screen
version) on my original post.
-Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mac" <mac at nibsc.ac.uk>
To: "Jerry Askew" <jdaskew-samba at misguru.com>
Cc: <samba at lists.samba.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Using parameters in lpq command conflicts with
background


> Hi Jerry, (and rest of list)
>
>>
>>I have an application than makes use of the "lpq command" and uses the
>>%U parameter in the command string.  The application returns a
>>personalized queue list based on the value of %U.  This technique worked
>>well in older versions of Samba (circa RedHat 8), but I have run into
>>some trouble with Samba 3.  The issue appears to be twofold.
>>
>>    1)  The lpq command is now run from the background lpq monitoring
>>process, which does not have a "user" (%U) per-se associated with it.
>>
>>    2)  The background lpq process maintains its cache(s) based on the
>>service name.  IIRC, the older caching system maintained a cache for
>>each unique "lpq command" line.
>
> Indeed it did.  In fact the whole (tdb-based) lpq monitoring system has
> a whole heap of changes from previous Samba versions (we jumped from
> 1.9.18p8 to 3.0.6) and all sorts of strange things happen now.
>
>
>>
>>I've temporarily solved the problem by running smbd from inetd - this
>>prevents the background lpq process from running and causes each user's
>>process to invoke their own lpq command (complete with %U substitution).
>
> Fab!  Thanks for finding this workaround.  I'll give it a shot.
>
>
>>
>>Would it be possible to update the background lpq code to use the (fully
>>substituted) lpq command as the cache identifier instead of (or in
>>addition to) the service name?  My application aside, I think it would
>>be best if Samba's behavior was consistent in both daemon and non-daemon
>>modes.  I'd be willing to lend my mediocre programming skills to the
>>task if it would help.
>
> I agree about the damon vs. non-daemon mode, very odd that the behaviour
> is
> inconsistent.
>
>                               Mac
>          Assistant Systems Adminstrator @nibsc.ac.uk
>                        dmccann at nibsc.ac.uk
>   Work: +44 1707 641565          Everything else: +44 7956 237670
> (anytime)