Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio Merino <email@example.com>
Date: 03/20/2003 17:11:45
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:58:33 -0500
gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
mailwrapper is also useful if you want to use a mailer not in the
base system. In fact, mailer.conf(5) talks about mini_sendmail from
> 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
I'm not talking about replacing lpd in the base system. I'm just
saying that the way to configure another lpd (from pkgsrc) should be
1) easier, 2) cleaner.
> 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
Okay, you put symlinks in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. Then, you rebuild
your NetBSD system and update it. Guess what happens with your
symlinks/binaries? They are lost, overriden or whatever.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/