From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jun 26 9:44: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957AB37BA40 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za) by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 136byz-0008H6-00; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:43:37 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Wes Peters Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:51:25 CST." <39577BFD.3C3ECB54@softweyr.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:43:37 +0200 Message-ID: <31805.962037817@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:51:25 CST, Wes Peters wrote: > I think the primary reason given is that LPRng is under active maintenance, > and the existing BSD lpr is not. That seems to me to be the primary motivator. Other folks were talking about our lpr being somewhat arcane. My only concern is that we lose through incompatibility with previous releases what we gain in maintenance. Of course, I'm one of the people that isn't affected by this. I'm just worried about the "replacement bandwagon" that seems to be gathering momentum. I'd feel more comfortable knowing that each replacement proposal were evaluated on its own merits, rather than just being allowed to ride in on the momentum of another. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message