On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 12:56:42PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Wed 03 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> >
> > > [...Raul wrote...]
> > > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > > > standard and demote lpr to optional.
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you take a look at the bug report, you'll see that there's a
> workaround already in place for this bug, but the maintainer left the
> bug report intact because he wants to find a cleaner solution.
>
> Hence this discussion of lpr <-> lprng is pretty mu
On Wed 03 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
>
> > [...Raul wrote...]
> > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > > compatability is a nice thing, but in m
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> [...Raul wrote...]
> > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > compatability is a nice thing, but in my experience lprng is superior to
> > lpr.
> >
> > -
4 matches
Mail list logo
