Subject: Re: lpwrapper
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny C. Lam <email@example.com>
Date: 03/21/2003 11:37:08
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 02:54:04PM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 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.
> IMHO, *that* would suck. Most of us are free to upgrade the base
> system or X or packages independently as the need arises, or as the
> whim strikes us, and you'd lose that.
> There must be some long-time users of CUPS or LPrng around. How are
> they dealing with the issues now? (...and where are they? ;-))
I'm a CUPS user (good integration with Samba and nice admin interface) and
I rely on PATH settings because it's difficult to deal with upgrading the
base system otherwise. /etc/profile is helpful in this situation. My
personal opinion is that it's not useful to include more wrapperized
system programs if syspkgs is fairly close to completion.
-- Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>