Mantis - cupsclient
Viewing Issue Advanced Details
4533 packaging minor always 2010-08-27 19:24 2011-08-05 01:38
phil  
maciej  
normal  
closed  
no change required  
none    
none  
0004533: cups binaries conflict with system binary names
I have only just noticed that "cupsclient" provides binaries that have a namespace conflict with system level ones! :( specifically, lp, lpstat, lpq, lpr, lprm, cancel

I dont recall this ever being brought up on the maintainers list, or discussed previously. "cups" has always been just a black hole to me. Until I decided to try using it just now :(
Please give some thought to this problem.
 
Issue History
2010-08-27 19:24 phil New Issue
2010-08-27 21:04 maciej Note Added: 0008219
2010-08-27 22:33 phil Note Added: 0008220
2010-08-28 12:44 skayser Note Added: 0008221
2010-08-28 16:56 phil Note Added: 0008222
2011-08-05 01:33 maciej Status new => assigned
2011-08-05 01:33 maciej Assigned To => maciej
2011-08-05 01:38 maciej Note Added: 0009219
2011-08-05 01:38 maciej Status assigned => closed
2011-08-05 01:38 maciej Resolution open => no change required

Notes
(0008219)
maciej   
2010-08-27 21:04   
Part of cups deployment on Solaris is removing the SUNW printing packages. It's up to the user to remove the packages beforehand.

The packages are:
SUNWscplp SUNWppm SUNWpsu SUNWpsr SUNWpcu SUNWpcr

After these packages are removed, lp, lpstat, lpq and the like are all gone from /usr/bin. There are still conflicting man pages; I removed these using a configuration management system. I don't know if there's any good way of handling that.

Back to the /usr/bin vs /opt/csw/bin topic, I don't see any issue with the binary names. There's a blog post that I used as a guideline for deploying cups:

http://blogs.sun.com/DanX/entry/using_cups_print_server_for [^]

Perhaps we could have a better documentation and a better way of delivering the documentation.
(0008220)
phil   
2010-08-27 22:33   
Overlooking the potential disagreement about naming principles for a minute... There's some inconsistency here.
If your standpoint is "the sun packages need to be removed", then you should also complain, or do something, about the fact that if you install nothing but CSWcupsclient, there is a conflict with SUNWpcu and SUNWpcr

Doing your check/removal for CSWcups only, is incomplete, from a user standpoint. It seems like a reasonable thing to me in some circumstances to install only CSWcupsclient without ever installing CSWcups

For the documentation: I'm not suggesting that you write The Definitive Guide To CUPS setup. Only that you please at least provide a reference to one, in
/opt/csw/share/doc/cupsclient :-)
(0008221)
skayser   
2010-08-28 12:44   
For the sake of completeness, we already have instructions on how to replace Sun delivered Cups with ours. That's what we do internally and at customer sites.

  http://wiki.opencsw.org/cups-package [^]

You could integrate it into a README.CSW and point to it via a postmessage to guide users. Or point to the Wiki page right away. IMHO a user-site configuration issue similar to other packages like e.g. our MTAs which deliver mailq and sendmail. Executable name clashes there too by the way.
(0008222)
phil   
2010-08-28 16:56   
btw, the "name clashes" on postfix are okay, because they are in a different location, rather then /opt/csw/bin. That's why we have /opt/csw/gnu as well.
(0009219)
maciej   
2011-08-05 01:38   
Currently, there is consensus that the name conflicts are not a problem. In the case of cups, the procedure is to remove Sun printing packages, so the identically named packages are gone from /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.

http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-June/014803.html [^]
http://wiki.opencsw.org/cups-package [^]