Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Julio Merino <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/20/2003 12:06:16
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Julio Merino wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:58:33 -0500
> gabriel rosenkoetter <> wrote:
> > 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[1])
> 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
> > PR).
> 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.

Agreed, it's a mess. The blame lies with the CUPS so-and-so's for
naming the utilities the same as the default ones -- the README.txt
explains that you're *expected* to replace your system utilities with
theirs. I'm still afraid that your suggestion will lead to additional
support demands, to the detriment of the very fine (if slightly dated)
in-tree lpd.

BTW, I committed a change to the cups package to link -lcrypt in ahead
of -lcrypto. That would be great if you could test auth w/ blowfish
hashes, and revert your change to the MESSAGE file if it works.