On Friday, 20 February 2026 at 19:39:49 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Due to low code quality, known bugs, and a general lack of interest > over the past several decades, we are currently considering retiring > the entire lp* suite (lp(1), lpc(1), lpd(8), lpq(1), lpr(1), > lprm(1), lptest(1), pac(8)) from base.
As others have noted, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Clearly it *is* broke, but you're replacing it, not fixing it. And who are "we"? And why are you removing it rather than replacing it? > It would be extremely helpful if those of you who are using base lpr / > lpd today could take the time to try out the lprng package / the > print/lprng port (which should be a drop-in replacement) and let me know > if there is any loss of functionality. OK, good that you have done this. Did you coordinate (or at least discuss) this with the other BSDs? And why a new name? We didn't change "FreeBSD" to "FreeBSDng" when we released 5.0 decades ago. And IIRC some other utilities have been replaced with rewrites, without the name changing. And then there are things like postfix and cups (shudder) that reuse the old names. So if it HAS to be a port, why not call it print/lpr? If it isn't 100% compatible (think of names hard-coded in scripts), what is the difference? Why? And in which version of ports is print/lprng? I don't find it in my tree. Once an argument for FreeBSD was that it installed with all tools out of the box. Removing things from base just moves towards the Linux view of the world. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
