Recent posts

#1

General Discussion / Re: Please upgrade package dep...

Last post by bchemnet - October 18, 2025, 09:29:58

The dependencies have not been updated because the GUIs do not work with new versions.  The last update to the GUI from Samsung was over a decade ago, and the issue is worse than just python 2.7 dependency: it also requires Qt4, which is similarly obsolete and removed from Debian, and the GUI depends on a library with a known major, unpatched security flaw.  I have tested the programs with updated Qt and python, and they load but ultimately fail to work correctly.

I would like to achieve the goal that you describe, especially because I have seen a large increase in traffic to this repository over the past few months so there clearly is still interest in using these printers.  But the software is simply too old and closed source, so I do not have a solution.

The scantopc scripts could be updated, but would require a major rewrite because the core python library used was not ported to python 3.  So far nobody has been motivated to put in that effort since the original authors moved on.

The other problem that is coming up soon is CUPS 3.  When that is finally released, likely within the next year (although it has been "within a year" for nearly 4 years now), the drivers will also stop working due to a fundamental change in how CUPS will interact with printers.  Obviously it will take some time for CUPS 3 to work its way into enough distributions to have a major impact, but there is a definite end of life coming for the Samsung printers even if the hardware is still good, except for people with the considerable expertise to configure their printer without any GUI or CUPS.

#2

General Discussion / Please upgrade package depende...

Last post by Krotow - October 17, 2025, 06:13:22

Just installed SULDR driver for work with Samsung C460W printer from Linux Mint 22.2. That went fine. However all GUI package and some other package install fail with unmet dependencies to python 2.7 error

Code Select Expand

$ sudo apt install suld-scantopc
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 suld-scantopc : Depends: python (>= 2.7) but it is not installable
                 Depends: python (< 3.0) but it is not installable
                 Depends: python-imaging-sane (>= 1.1.7) but it is not installable or
                          python-sane (>= 1.1.7) but it is not installable
                 Depends: python-pypdf (>= 1.13) but it is not installable
                 Depends: python-pysnmp4 but it is not installable
                 Depends: python-six but it is not installable

This obviously happen because Debian removed Python 2.x support 3 years ago. However it would be time to finally upgrade SULDR package dependencies too. Because Python 2.x was obsoleted eons ago. And most importantly, due to latest Microsoft Windows 11 shenanigans we can expect large user influx in Linux desktop realm. These people has SULDR compatible Samsung/HP printers as well. If supplies are available, printers usually outlive 3+ OS generations. Would be nice to not break user experience impression for newcomers.

#3

Scanning / Re: Samsung M2675FN no scan vi...

Last post by bchemnet - June 27, 2025, 21:10:22

Have you tried the various strategies given on the scanning page (https://www.bchemnet.com/suldr/scanning.html), specifically issue 11?

Unfortunately that collection of posts is probably all the specific guidance that I can provide.

#4

Scanning / Samsung M2675FN no scan via ne...

Last post by unmute - June 27, 2025, 09:11:05

Samsung Xpress M2675FN
Manjaro Linux Linux 6.12.34-1-MANJARO (x86_64)
Printer is Network connected via CUPS and ipp
Samsung unified driver 1.00.39-11, installed from AUR Repo
Cannot connect to Scanner. USB-port is dead. Setup via Network is mandatory. Printing is OK.

I could print and scan via network without any problems. Then a flash hit my computer and I am just installing a ne one. While that, I found, that the USB port of the printer is damaged also, so that I can access the printer only by network via CUPS and the Samsung driver integrated in CUPS.

Then I assumed, that I could get the scan function only by installing the samsung-unified-driver from AUR repo (I am on Manjaro / Arch-Linux) and in conjunction with an usb-port.

Luckily I have a second printer and same model with USB port working. I installed and I could scan with this second printer.

Then I returned to the printer with dead USB port, hoping, I now could scan via network, as the drivers are initialized correctly. But nope! – Everything was like before: I can print via network but cannot scan.

Due to other issues, I cannot use the other printer and connect via usb.

How can I manage to achieve scanning via network???

#5

Using the Repository / Re: Debian apt-get policy will...

Last post by bchemnet - May 13, 2025, 08:41:36

Another solution for anyone encountering this and wanting to prevent the warnings: disable this repository except when you are actively using it.  Given that the binary files are unlikely to ever change again, there really is no need to regularly check for updates after setting up working drivers, except possibly around the major updates of your Linux distro.  For context, there has not been an update to most driver packages in over 4 years, and it is entirely possible that there will never be another major change to most of them.

#6

Using the Repository / Re: Debian apt-get policy will...

Last post by bchemnet - May 10, 2025, 08:09:20

Thanks for the quick response!
But is it really necessary to leave the old key, since repository users will automatically update to the new keyring package by merely using the repository?

Yes, the old key has to remain for a while.  The key is used to sign the information about available packages, which is read before updates happen.  If the existing key on someone's system does not match the signature, the update to the new key will not be allowed automatically.  So I have to temporarily sign the package list with both keys, so that everyone can update without having to manually install the new key.  And many people do not run updates every day, so it can take a while before the large majority of users have installed the new key.

The reason revoking the old key does not help is that the warning is not actually about the key.  It is a warning about the signature in the package file, which still refers to the old key whether or not the key is trusted by your system.  I am not familiar enough with Sequioa (the new PGP system replacing GPG in Debian) to know if there is a way to suppress the warning during this transition.  If the package sqv is not installed (and gpg still is), there is no warning, although that is not an elegant solution or consistent with the direction Debian is moving in.

#7

Using the Repository / Re: Debian apt-get policy will...

Last post by adubourg - May 10, 2025, 01:07:36

Thanks for the quick response!
But is it really necessary to leave the old key, since repository users will automatically update to the new keyring package by merely using the repository?

[EDIT] I've tried removing the old key from '/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/suldr-keyring.gpg', so that now it only contains

pub   ed25519 2025-05-09 [SC] [expires: 2035-05-07]
      31712967E9DA399C42BED2F5A890B7701F3014B7
uid                      bchemnet <suldr@bchemnet.com>
sub   cv25519 2025-05-09 [E] [expires: 2035-05-07]

but I still have the same warning from `apt-get update`... However, it might just be because I don't really know what I'm doing with GPG >_<'

-- Alex

#8

Using the Repository / Re: Debian apt-get policy will...

Last post by bchemnet - May 09, 2025, 18:50:41

Thanks for the alert.  Apparently the key was one caught in a long-standing bug that is now being exposed as Debian changes over their default GPG tool.  I have added a new key that does not trigger the warning.  You may still see the warning for the existing key until I remove it, but I will allow a few months before doing so to give repository users time to update to the new keyring package.

#9

Using the Repository / Debian apt-get policy will rej...

Last post by adubourg - May 08, 2025, 11:36:58

Hi,

I just had a warning from `apt-get update` while updating my Debian system:

W: http://www.bchemnet.com/suldr/dists/debian/InRelease: Policy will reject signature within a year, see --audit for details
A: http://www.bchemnet.com/suldr/dists/debian/InRelease: Sub-process /usr/bin/sqv returned an error code (1), error message is:
   Signing key on 230890002EDEE9679DE6FC73FB510D557CC3E840 is not bound:
              No binding signature at time 2023-10-09T03:00:11Z
     because: Policy rejected non-revocation signature (PositiveCertification) requiring second pre-image resistance
     because: SHA1 is not considered secure since 2026-02-01T00:00:00Z

:(

-- Alex

#10

Scanning / Re: Scanning with CLX-2160

Last post by bchemnet - August 27, 2024, 19:58:22

Thank you for sharing this fix.