| 1 |
ok, this breaks threading but I just got a bounce due to wrong sender |
| 2 |
address, (having mailprobs) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
--- |
| 5 |
begin quote |
| 6 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:16:07 +0200 |
| 7 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Sunday 24 August 2003 18:44, Spider wrote: |
| 10 |
> > begin quote |
| 11 |
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:32:22 -0500 |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > > lpr |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > But, Am I the only one who sees an advantage in moving the default |
| 16 |
> > profiles to LSB compliance, and providing an alternated "light" one |
| 17 |
> > for the cases that want them? (heck, if you dislike dhcpcd I'm |
| 18 |
> > pretty sure you don't want the bloat of glibc either, go for uclibc. |
| 19 |
> > ;) but sarcasm |
| 20 |
> > aside, the suggestion is serious. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Well, I can see the advantage of mimmicing the LSB, but for example |
| 23 |
> lpr does not make sense without a printer, and setting up a printer |
| 24 |
> takes configuring anyway so I don't feel it should be part of system |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Here we can disagree, as the LSB defines lpr, it can well be just an |
| 28 |
offline printer (print-to-file setup) which can very well be configured |
| 29 |
per default. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
However, if we wish to include it in the basic profile or not is another |
| 32 |
question. I still think that doing so (or posix compliance, see thread |
| 33 |
about bloat.) could provide to be a benefit for the project. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
//Spider |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
begin .signature |
| 41 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 42 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 43 |
end |
Archives