On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Julio Merino wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:06:16 -0600 (CST)
> Frederick Bruckman <fredb@immanent.net> wrote:
>
> Grrrr why did I ever mention cups?  This is not a problem specific with
> cups.  It is with *any* daemon meant to replace lpd.  Just checked the
> LPRng package, and it installs the same binaries, so it has the same
> problem.  And if there is any other alternative, it may be possible
> affected by this.
>
> > explains that you're *expected* to replace your system utilities with
> > theirs.
>
> I don't want to remove or change anything in the base system, as it will
> be overriden in the next update (no, I don't want to tweak my makefiles
> nor sources).  Using a wrapper is like "replacing your system utilities
> with theirs", but in a clean way.

I do see your point. Is there that much of a demand to replace our
in-tree "lpd"? "sendmail" is positively hated by many, but what's not
to like about our "lpd"? ;-) ;-)

> > 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.
>
> Like what?  I can't think of anything else needed... (my printing
> knowledge on *nix is "poor").

Like at worst, people will say, "I see that you're phasing out "lpd",
so I tried ____, and such and such didn't work", and then folks on the
lists will try to help them configure ____, and much effort will be
wasted, and no one will care about our own "lpd" anymore, even though
it does everything you want a printer daemon to do (namely, spool
files to the printer :-)). That's my fear, anyway.

> > 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.
>
> Done, thanks for fixing it.

Great! I'm pleased it worked.

Frederick