Re: Should CUPS replace lpr et al?

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:51:53PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:

> Should CUPS, when installing, overwrite existing lpr etc. tools?

FWIW, FreeBSD installs it all into /usr/local and leaves the system binaries intact. /etc/printcap gets overwritten.

I banged my head against it for the better part of an hour until I realized that the original lpr, etc., was still being used. If there was any kind of install warning, I never saw it--but, then again, FreeBSD isn't particularly great in that regards.

What I did was `chmod 0 /usr/bin/lp*` and the like. So long as /usr/local/bin (and friends) are in ${PATH} and programs don't assume that lpr is in /usr/bin (after all, I think I once saw a system where lpr was in /bin), everything is just fine.

For me, the install / deinstall system would do the same; it would seem to be the least disruptive approach. If you're worried about programs hard-wired to /usr/bin/lp*, then you probably have to move and link.

Do you need help?

In addition to our free technical library, Pantek provides professional IT services to companies who utilize Open Source software: Learn more about Pantek's Technical Support offerings Place an order for 24/7/365 Technical Support here Learn more about Pantek, who we are, and what we do Chat with a Live Operator Related openbsd.org Links advocacy announce bugs ipv6 misc ports ports-changes security-announce smp source-changes tech Request more information about Pantek

But, regardless, *PLEASE* have an install message that says *EXACTLY* what the heck is going on. I had many unkind thoughts about the FreeBSD porters during that whole install. The same has never happened to me on OpenBSD.

Cheers,

b&

-- 
Ben Goren
 mailto:ben@trumpetpower.com
 
http://www.trumpetpower.com/
 icbm:33o25'37"N_111o57'32"W