Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Julio Merino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 03/20/2003 15:43:24
[ On Thursday, March 20, 2003 at 20:12:04 (+0100), Julio Merino wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: lpwrapper
> 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.
I suppose you'd like to have wrappers around everything for which more
than one implementation exists? That's never going to be a universally
successful way to replace base system components with add-on packages.
Ineed as Fredrick has hinted it's probably never going to be a supported
mechanism for _any_ add-on packages per se (only to the extent that
there may be add-on packages which also can work with such a scheme used
for existing alternative base-system implementations, as with mailwrapper)
Why don't you just install CUPS with LOCALBASE=/usr and be done?
> > 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.
If you equate "update" with "update base+packages" then nothing will be
overwritten in any update even if CUPS is installed in the base system
hierarchy because you'll always re-install CUPS after any update of the
base system and be as happy as you could possibly be in that situation.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>