Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Julio Merino <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-userlevel
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;            <>;           <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>