Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Ben Harris <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/20/2003 16:37:16
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Ben Harris wrote:
> In article <Pine.NEB.email@example.com> you write:
> >On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Greywolf wrote:
> >I think there is a good criterial that we can establish for what we wrap
> >and what we don't.
> I think you're right there, but I think you've got the criterion slightly
> wrong. For most things that a user might replace (m4, vi, libcurses ...),
> it doesn't really matter if programs call the wrong one. Having GNU m4
> installed won't stop the standard NetBSD m4 working, so any application that
> runs the old m4 will still work (assuming it wasn't expecting GNUish
> functionality, of course).
> In the case of lpr and sendmail, though, if the user has installed a
> replacement, the standard version _won't_ work. Submitting a print job
> through the in-tree lpd won't work if the in-tree lpr isn't running, and
> similarly sending mail though Sendmail won't work very well if the user has
> only configured Exim.
Oh, yes, that is a good point. Thanks. I think that clarifies why a
wrapper is needed.