Re: Retiring lpr and lpd

On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:07:31 +0100
Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cy Schubert <[email protected]> writes:
> > I have extracted lpr/lpd and friends into its own repo on GH and will 
> > create a port sometime next week or two.
> 
> Let me get this straight, you intend to create a port for software which
> is still in base (and is expected to remain there for at least another
> year) and is known to be severely buggy?
> 
> How about you spend your copious free time fixing Kerberos instead?
> Surely you're getting the same Jenkins reports we're all getting, which
> have been showing build failures in Kerberos for several weeks?
> 
> DES
> -- 
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected]

Putting Cy's other works aside, developing / fixing on ports
is not a bad thing unless conflicting with other ports, as anyone
interested can easily test and feedback compared with patching
base. Faster turnarounds. Yes, but it would mean building base twice
(one for opting out current lpr familiy and another to opting in
again once ports one is merged into base instead of current
implementation).

And recently virtual_oss was incorporated into base.
This would be a good example, IMHO. (Not an example to replace
something in base, though.)


-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <[email protected]>