From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Oct 30 20:15:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from wensleydale.netmonger.net (wensleydale.netmonger.net [167.206.208.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8826337B408 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from dna.masto.com (ool-18b9169a.dyn.optonline.net [24.185.22.154]) (AUTH: LOGIN chris@retardix.com, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,168bits,DES-CBC3-SHA) by wensleydale.netmonger.net with esmtp; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:15:22 -0500 Received: (from chris@localhost) by dna.masto.com (8.11.5/8.11.4) id f9V4FPC48991; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:15:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chris@masto.com) X-Authentication-Warning: dna.masto.com: chris set sender to chris@masto.com using -f Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:15:24 -0500 From: Christopher Masto To: Alan E Cc: Thomas Yengst , jah4007@cs.rit.edu, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: cups-1.1.10.1 Message-ID: <20011030231524.E1633@masto.com> References: <3BDF3BF6.456B7252@photon.com> <20011030194546.A1633@masto.com> <200110310211.f9V2Bjd81218@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200110310211.f9V2Bjd81218@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i 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 On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:11:45PM -0500, Alan E wrote: > OTOH, cups is *intended* to replace the existing printing system. It is, however, not equivalent to ether the FreeBSD printing system or LPRng. I personally feel it is inferior to the latter in many ways. > There is no reason to ever have LPRng and CUPS both installed on the same > box I certainly won't disagree with you there. > If you are using LPRng and you blindly install CUPS I "blindly" installed KDE, a "desktop environment". Should I have expected it to overwrite files installed by another rather unrelated port? I don't think so.. > well, RPM has the idea of a conflict. I assume ports does also. Your assumption is entirely incorrect. > Those two packages should be marked as conflicting, and only one > allowed to install. If that were the case, it wouldn't happen. > Among other things, if both LPRng and CUPS "own", e.g., /usr/local/bin/lpr, > deleting whichever one came first shouldn't touch /usr/local/bin/lpr, since > its ownership has been usurped by the later package. But I doubt it works > that way. It doesn't. Obviously the hypothetical person who is inconvenienced by this is me, particularly because the LPRng port happened to be broken at the time, making it rather difficult to regain an important function. -- "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you." -- Samuel Adams, 1776 CB461C61 8AFC E3A8 7CE5 9023 B35D C26A D849 1F6E CB46 1C61 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message