From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jun 23 13:24:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3456E37B89C; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA562618; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:24:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20000621221636.A4137@kilt.nothing-going-on.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:24:57 -0400 To: Nik Clayton , arch@FreeBSD.ORG From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Cc: papowell@astart.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 1:31 PM -0400 6/23/00, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >At 10:16 PM +0000 6/21/00, Nik Clayton wrote: >>Patrick wants feedback on whether or not FreeBSD would be >>interested in adopting LPRng as our official LPR implementation, >>(src/contrib/lprng, presumably). I said I'd raise the issue >>on -arch, and then, not being much of a printer maven, step >>back while everyone talks the issue back and forth. > >Given that it is like pulling teeth to get anyone to add an >update to our current version of lpr, I suppose this is a >good thing. My obvious frustration probably clouds my last message too much. Here's a somewhat more helpful suggestion. First, I assume that whatever GNU-licensed code in lprNG can be replaced by BSD/artistic-licensed code, so I won't talk about licensing issues. Second, my guess is that lprNG will not be a perfectly compatible drop-in replacement for freebsd's current lpr. I do expect it would work fine for most people, but that some people will find that they will have to futz around with their printcap/printing setup to get the behavior they are used to (whatever that may be...). That might be an annoying extra step in upgrading to whatever release of freebsd that this happens on. This suggests to me that MAYBE we don't want to bring lprNG into the base system, so much as MOVE the current lpr from the base system into a port. Wherever it is that someone selects that they want 'printing' on their freebsd config, they could select either this new port or the lprNG-based port. Does this seem reasonable/practical/useful? --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message