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 my experience lprng is superior to > > > lpr.
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 much off-topic, and distracting to the point in question. He probably should have changed the priority to wishlist, however. Paul Slootman -- home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]