Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: Julio Merino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/20/2003 16:09:44
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:29:58 -0600 (CST)
Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Julio Merino wrote:
> > I've just installed cups on my system, and (obviously) binary programs
> > conflict with the ones in the base system. One needs to:
> > 1) Remove lpd from the base system (acceptable when we have syspkg), but
> > for now it's a very ugly hack.
> > 2) Set up path's so that lp* in /usr/pkg are found before /usr. This
> > looks ugly too. Relying on path order is bad, imo.
> The only place that matters is in the rc.d script that starts up "lp",
> so I don't see why it's a problem. If it really bothers you, you could
> rename the cups-installed binaries.
Sure? There are lots of programs that execute the 'lpr' binary to print
things. So if they use the one in /usr/bin, cups won't get noticed about
the new job.
The same applies if you exec 'lprm' or 'lpq' from the command line to see
or manage the printer status. If you run the ones in /usr/bin, you will
be using lpd, thus not getting the expected results.
> CUPS is an ugly hack. The whole notion of parsing the content of the
> print job to determine how to handle it is fundamentally flawed.
How is this related to what I'm proposing?
Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/