On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:14AM -0700, Devin Reade wrote: > --On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:49:30 AM -0600 Chris Bennett > <chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us> wrote: > > > I do see that lpc, lpq, lprm are dinosaurs and have to be made extinct > > and replaced with something more functional with more information output > > and better capabilities. > > Whatever changes may happen under the hood, I would like to see > at least the basic operations of lpr, lpq, and lprm remain available > under those names, using the existing syntax. I'm no fan of CUPS, but I > get by with it on linux because of the lpr compatibility shim. > > Devin >
Absolutely yes. There are many printing facilities that rely on some scripts somebody wrote a long time ago. The havoc that would create would scare away people from upgrading their version of OpenBSD. We don't want to frighten people into turning to CUPS. ---------------------------------------------- Looking for anyone's opinion on this: lpr, lpc, lpd, lpq, lprm, printcap need to be kept around to allow older software to be just moved onto newer OpenBSD installation. Should a new set of names be created and these existing names used as symlinks to the new versions in order to produce legacy input/output? Keep using printcap file for new work or put an example into a man page for legacy users and create a new /etc file for printing? Thanks, Chris
