[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

lprng as 'stantard' package (was: Re: Test packages for libc6 2.1.91+cvs)

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Adam Klein wrote:
> > What will happen is pure natural selection. If lpr doesn't fix the libc6
> > bug, it will have to lose its standard status (and become 'extra', or,
> > should it not build from source anymore, get dropped from the distribution),
> > and LPRNG will take its place.
> As maintainer of lpr, I would certainly support such a change.  In the
> past, when I asked if people still used lpr, I got a definite positive
> response, so I think we should certainly try to keep it in the
> distribution.  But I think 'extra' would be a much better place than
> standard.

I hope that libc6 bug is easy to fix, then. As long as lpr works (and builds
from source) with the packages in debian, it should not be removed.

Still, if you'd rather have lpr/lpd as "extra", LPRNg would have to be
changed to "standard" so that UNIX network-aware printing services are
available in the standard install.  The LPRNg maintainer (added by me to cc:
list) might want to say something about this.

BTW, according to the popularity contest, lprng has 347 users (33 old, 32
too recent to verify) against 186 (6 old) of lpr... so maybe lprng really
should be the standard lpd/lpr package for Debian?

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Attachment: pgphdhYFNcHRa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: