Re: lprng
- To: "Karl M. Hegbloom" <karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com>
- Cc: Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>, Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>, debian-testing@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: lprng
- From: Pann McCuaig <pann@ourmanpann.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:10:05 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000515061005.B9008@desktop.ourmanpann.com>
- Mail-followup-to: "Karl M. Hegbloom" <karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com>, Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>, Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>, debian-testing@lists.debian.org
- Reply-to: Pann McCuaig <pann@oz.net>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87k8gwl3bu.fsf@bittersweet.intra>; from Karl M. Hegbloom on Sun, May 14, 2000 at 11:44:53PM -0700
- References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1000514054331.258A-100000@stephen> <[🔎] 87k8gwl3bu.fsf@bittersweet.intra>
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 23:44, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> >>>>> "Philip" == Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> writes:
>
> Philip> I have previously mentioned that lp, gs, magicfilter & libpaperg
> Philip> are not included either. We need to ensure that the crass newbie gets
> Philip> everything needed.
>
> I think that `lprng' should be the one included, since it's the one
> I've had the best luck with. Anyone else agree?
I've never had a problem with lpr. Not the case with lprng (although
it's been as far back as bo). Of course, YMMV, but I see no compelling
reason to change.
Cheers,
Pann
--
geek by nature, Linux by choice L I N U X .~.
The Choice /V\
http://www.ourmanpann.com/linux/ of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: New APT
- From: Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz>
- Re: New APT
- From: karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom)