Subject: Re: why separate system and pkg hierarchies? (was: /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/*)
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: current-users
Date: 03/20/2003 21:41:19
[ On Thursday, March 20, 2003 at 20:54:49 (-0500), gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: why separate system and pkg hierarchies? (was: /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/*)
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:09:51PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > What you're saying is really logically no different than if there were
> > also "bsdlpd" package and you want to have it installed in parallel with
> > CUPS and LPrng.
> But we don't HAVE a packaged system

But we will (hopefully!) have a packaged system so I think planning
around it is rather counter-productive.

> and we have a real problem of
> name space conflicts, which will lead to overwriting on updating the
> system.

No, not if you fix the CUPS package to avoid such conflicts....  There
shouldn't ben any fundamental problem with the package prefixing all the
CUPS commands with "cups-" or such.  You could even simply avoid
installing the BSD-compatible commands and simply use the SysV ones

> We also have a graceful fix ALREADY WRITTEN in the mailwrapper
> functionality.

But you/we don't _REALLY_NEED_ a wrapper for just "lpr"....

> Until the Golden Age of syspkg's graces us all, maybe we could use
> this as a work-around for programs like sendmail and lpd where real
> users of the real NetBSD operating system have a real problem?

Why not rename the CUPS commands to be unique and set it up with its
lpd-alike service listening on []:515 and then set up a simple
remote printer at "localhost" in /etc/printcap and run "lpd -s" so it
doesn't collide?

I.e. don't try to replace the base system's lpd et al with CUPS -- just
make it interface transparently to CUPS.

								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <>;           <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>