Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:24:33 -0500 From: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net> To: Christopher Masto <chris@masto.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: cups-1.1.10.1 Message-ID: <20011030232433.A9484@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> In-Reply-To: <20011030231524.E1633@masto.com>; from chris@masto.com on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:15:24PM -0500 References: <3BDF3BF6.456B7252@photon.com> <20011030194546.A1633@masto.com> <200110310211.f9V2Bjd81218@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20011030231524.E1633@masto.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:15:24PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote: >On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:11:45PM -0500, Alan E wrote: >> OTOH, cups is *intended* to replace the existing printing system. > >It is, however, not equivalent to ether the FreeBSD printing system or >LPRng. I personally feel it is inferior to the latter in many ways. Different features. CUPS is oriented towards PS printers. For me, it's the best choice. For you, not. >I "blindly" installed KDE, a "desktop environment". Should I have >expected it to overwrite files installed by another rather unrelated >port? I don't think so.. > I agree. Sysinstall is not clear about dependencies, and doesn't seem to provide a way to say that you don't really care what it thinks, you don't want package X, and that's that. >> well, RPM has the idea of a conflict. I assume ports does also. > >Your assumption is entirely incorrect. Ah. Looks like ports is needing a new feature. >> Among other things, if both LPRng and CUPS "own", e.g., /usr/local/bin/lpr, >> deleting whichever one came first shouldn't touch /usr/local/bin/lpr, since >> its ownership has been usurped by the later package. But I doubt it works >> that way. > >It doesn't. Looks like ports is needing another new feature. This, of course, is really just an extreme case of two conflicting versions of the same package, which pkg_* do not handle with even the least amount of grace. >Obviously the hypothetical person who is inconvenienced by this is me, >particularly because the LPRng port happened to be broken at the time, >making it rather difficult to regain an important function. Ouch! I could say "backups ... bla bla ... contingency ...", but, bottom line is, you're right, it shouldn't shoot itself, and by extension, you, in the foot like that. At least, not without copious warnings to the effect of, "Look, if I continue with what you've told me to do, I'm really going to fsck things up. Are you nuts?" >-- >"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What >should be the reward of such sacrifices? ... If ye love wealth better >than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest >of freedom -- go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which >feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you." -- Samuel Adams, 1776 > >CB461C61 8AFC E3A8 7CE5 9023 B35D C26A D849 1F6E CB46 1C61 -- Alan Eldridge from std_disclaimer import * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011030232433.A9484>