From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jan 11 22:12:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail5.nc.rr.com (fe5.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF5E37B400; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from there ([66.57.85.154]) by mail5.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:22:31 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Brian T.Schellenberger To: Alan Eldridge , Joe Clarke Subject: Re: CUPS support can be unconditional Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:22:21 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] Cc: dwcjr@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD Ports List References: <20020111182721.GA42417@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20020111191014.GA45037@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <0af954506040c12FE4@mail4.nc.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <0af954506040c12FE4@mail4.nc.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <094603122040c12FE5@mail5.nc.rr.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Kindly ignore this message. I didn't read the thread to its conclusion before jumping in again. On Friday 11 January 2002 11:06 pm, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote: > On Friday 11 January 2002 02:10 pm, Alan Eldridge wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:42:33PM -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: > > >On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Alan Eldridge wrote: > > >> I would recommend, upon some reflection, doing this the way we did in > > >> kdelibs. That is, cups-base is unconditional. If somebody really > > >> wants to use cups, they can't rely on another port to suck it in via > > >> dependency anyway; it doesn't work without being configured. > > > > > >I don't understand why your making CUPS mandatory for Samba. Some users > > >won't want it period. They'll want to stick with BSD printing (like for > > >use with apsfilter). This will cause unnecessary download and build > > > time. > > > > So Cups users should instead be required to build from source rather > > than use packages? > > > > A user who installs both samba and cups from packages (for example, > > when installing a new system from CDROM) finds that it won't work? > > > > That is a rather gross violation of POLA. > > Not as gross a violation of POLA as a user who has printing fully working > and then adds Samba and suddenly their NON-samba printing breaks. This is > exactly what happened to me to start this whole discussion. > > It was not at all obvious to me that the samba install was related to the > printing-system failure; indeed I at first thought it was KDE, though as it > turns out KDE had already been fixed and I was mis-reading the port info. > > Note that is is even *more* likely to confuse somebody who installs a > package than a port (since they are less likely to be able to hack around > and figure things out), so building with CUPS by default for the packages > seems like a particularly unfortunate proposal. > > Maybe a Samba-CUPS port and samba port (for the sake of the packages)? > That's pretty ugly. Best is, I think to either: > > 1) Make samba not use CUPS by default merely because the library is > present, or > 2) Fix CUPS that its out-of-the-box configuration simply routes everything > to the base system /usr/bin tools. > > I like (2) best--it would allow the user to essentially be indifferent to > which system was being used as long as they don't actually configure CUPS, > and if they do configure CUPS, they presumably expect CUPS to do whatever > they configured it to do. -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . bts@wnt.sas.com (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . bts@babbleon.org (personal) http://www.babbleon.org -------> Free Dmitry Sklyarov! (let him go home) <----------- http://www.eff.org http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message