From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jun 26 18:47:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB78E37BDAE for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by picnic.mat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23444; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:45:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:45:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey To: Wes Peters Cc: Sheldon Hearn , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? In-Reply-To: <39577BFD.3C3ECB54@softweyr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Wes Peters wrote: > Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > > Could someone just enumerate the advantages of importing LPRng? It > > seems to be a package which can me made to do everything FreeBSD's lpr > > can do, but it does not seem to be a superset of FreeBSD's lpr. This > > means that there is a cost associated with bringing it in as a > > replacement. > > > > Are we sure that the cost is justified? Is it so much better than the > > existing lpr that having it available as a port is "not enough"? > > > > I have no stsrong opinion one way or the other, but I do get the feeling > > that this thread has skipped an important issue, instead focusing on > > licensing. This looks like a little cart before horse. > > I think the primary reason given is that LPRng is under active maintenance, > and the existing BSD lpr is not. There have been internally generated updates (take a look at cvs log). I have to admit there haven't been too many, but I personally really hate adding more GPL software, when the existing software WILL do the job for most users, and ports can serve equally well for folks who need more capability. If the only criteria was which was better, then ports wouldn't really exist. If I wanted GPL stuff, I would go get Linux. If I want lprng, I need only install the port. It's really easy adding a port, but far harder taking lprng back out and adding in lpr back again, for those folks who are using FreeBSD as a commercial development platform. I just don't like gratuitously adding in extra GPL when there's no absolutely required reason for it. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message