Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: None <email@example.com>
From: gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/20/2003 10:58:33
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:29:58AM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> 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.
That's kind of a naive response.
CUPS (as any lpd replacement would) installs an lp, lpr, lprm, and
lpq. Using the system ones won't have the desired effect.
I agree, though, that we have mailwrapper because we have Postfix in
the base system. Until such time as we want to try a transition to a
different default lpd (which I'd be in favor of, and in fact I like
CUPS) it doesn't make sense to have a similar wrapper. However,
having the pkgsrc CUPS install point out that you need to at least
sym link to the usual lp utilities would be a Good Idea (and worth a
 The chances that I want Postscript output as plain text out of
a *printer* (think about how much paper that is...) are maybe 1 in
1000, and I can go to some special effort to make it happen; anyway,
we *already* grovel file contents for things like file(1)... do
you disapprove of that? Can you show an example of when CUPS got
this wrong in the real world?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----