Re: Retiring lpr and lpd

John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes:
> Certainly if it is fine to defer the actual port creation until the
> software is removed.  That is fair.  However, I certainly expected in
> our earlier discussions that we would handle the removal by creating a
> port, and the resistance to that is a bit surprising to me.

I never objected to having a cleaned-up lpr in ports, but nobody has
actually suggested that.  Cy was about to create a port of the current,
vulnerable code.

Either we clean up lpr and it can stay in base, or we don't and it
doesn't belong in ports either.  I thought I had made that clear.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected]