From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jul 23 21:09:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06127 for current-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mole.mole.org (marmot.mole.org [204.216.57.191]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA06117 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mole.mole.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07178; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 04:09:38 GMT Received: from meerkat.mole.org(206.197.192.110) by mole.mole.org via smap (V1.3) id sma007176; Thu Jul 24 04:09:21 1997 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by meerkat.mole.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA20696; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:08:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:08:07 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" Message-Id: <199707240408.VAA20696@meerkat.mole.org> To: imp@rover.village.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au Subject: Re: lpr/lpd changes Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, tom@uniserve.com Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > No. The only behaviour that makes any sense is for lpd itself to exit > with a diagnostic if no printers are defined; there is no point in > trying to teach something else about a private configuration file. > Is this a good idea given the current defined behavior of lpc (say WRT start). I think it's not broke, and don't fix it :-) If somebody doesn't want to start lpd, let 'em decide not to do so and change their configuration files appropriately. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good