Re: Bug#187954: /run and read-only /etc
On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 08:35, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Thomas Hood <jdthood0@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Was: "ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?"
>
> > Summary
> > =======
> > * cupsys
> > #187954: Move /etc/printcap.cups under /var
>
> Huh? The "Printcap" directive specifies where to put the printcap,
> and the default config is not to generate one at all (since it's only
> for backward-compatibility with printcap-parsing programs). Its
> utility is limited, to say the least.
>
> By moving it under /var, you break all the /legacy/ programs that
> expect it to be there (and it usually won't be read unless it's called
> /etc/printcap). Moving won't make sense unless you alter every
> (ancient) program that requires it. Why not just not create it at
> all?
Actually, both of you are partially right.
The default configuration for the cupsys package (not necessarily
upstream) writes a printcap to /etc/printcap.cups, as described in the
bug. As you describe, the CUPS printcap is provided for compatibility
reasons only; it's not a full printcap. As you also mention, the file
does no good unless it's named /etc/printcap; in Debian, this problem is
solved by the cupsys-bsd package, which creates a symlink from
/etc/printcap.cups to /etc/printcap.
Given that /etc/printcap is a symlink anyway (when cupsys-bsd is
installed), there's no good reason why printcap.cups needs to be in
/etc, and it will probably be moved in the next upload. (Which will be
soon, due to a grave bug recently brought to my attention.)
--
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
Reply to: