Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:43:11 +1100 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> To: core@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: lpd: the thin edge of the wedge? Message-ID: <aZ0QP82UCeTXfFGc@hydra.lemis.com>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
I'm really quite concerned about the plans to remove lpd. I
understand that there are security issues with lpd, even if I haven't
heard any reports of exploits in over a third of a century, but the
approach seems wrong to me. If we follow this direction, we can pare
down FreeBSD to a bare minimum (the kernel and what else?).
So what should be done? I'm explicitly copying core@ on this, though
I assume that you have all been following things. But this is a basic
issue for the project, so core@ (and not srcmgr@) should have a
position on this.
I understand that des no longer feels interested in maintaining lpd or
fixing its apparently numerous bugs. But there are alternatives:
1. Find somebody who *is* interested. I haven't seen anything on the
mailing lists asking for this. Why not?
2. Take the corresponding code from another BSD, like we have done in
the past. des tells us, without details, that the OpenBSD code
has the same bugs. I've asked numerous times, but nobody has told
me whether they have spoken with the OpenBSD project about it.
And what about NetBSD or DragonflyBSD?
3. Make it a shared project amongst BSDs, like make(1).
What seems completely wrong to me is to outsource it to a port,
especially one that is unmaintained, has a GPL license and has
conflicts with existing installations.
I've been investigating LPRng in more detail, and the more I look, the
worse it gets:
1. From the Makefile:
LICENSE= ART10 GPLv2
I thought that was supposed *not* to be GPL.
2. Also in the Makefile:
CONFLICTS= cups-base-1.[2-9]*
So many ports have CUPS as a dependency that this makes it
effectively a no-no. I was going to build the port to see what it
was like, but this makes it almost impossible. I haven't found
any of my systems without CUPS. So to answer des' initial
question: no, it is by no means a drop-in replacement for base
lpd.
3. When I tried to build (and before it refused), I got:
The LPRng port currently does not have a maintainer. As a result, it is
more likely to have unresolved issues, not be up-to-date, or even be removed in
the future. To volunteer to maintain this port, please create an issue at:
Since when do we rely on unmaintained ports?
FWIW, trying to install the package doesn't complain, though it would
overwrite a number of files. This looks like a bug in the package to
me.
That's about as far as I went with LPRng. On the face of it, CUPS
would make more sense, though I've had nothing but trouble with it.
At least it doesn't require the GPL. But I still find reliance on
*any* port to be wrong.
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQSaG4ICvM64RvkvCawi5vKQUHpCIwUCaZ0QPwAKCRAi5vKQUHpC
I7BnAKCAJnIJrcdU80/hvGdbfRDNRtvwCACdEXYzemw/22l4TZ6ul4Z/PVceNRo=
=PotH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aZ0QP82UCeTXfFGc>