Le Dimanche 19 Octobre 2003 00:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit :
No significant advantage over CUPS (AFAIR).
So would you prefer cups for a printer not shared (for both security
and size reasons) ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
stephlub wrote:
I just saw today that pdq was'nt in 9.1
Do you mean 9.2? I am sure pdq was in 9.1. Anyway, it's now in contrib
(AFAIK).
I would like to know when and why it has been removed
It was moved to contrib about 2 months ago.
is it a
Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit :
stephlub wrote:
I just saw today that pdq was'nt in 9.1
Do you mean 9.2? I am sure pdq was in 9.1. Anyway, it's now in contrib
(AFAIK).
I'm afraid no, urpmq saw it only in contrib. :-/
I would like to know when and why it has been
Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit :
No significant advantage over CUPS (AFAIR).
So would you prefer cups for a printer not shared (for both security and
size reasons) ?
I have no such printers ;-).
Till probably has some other reasons ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit :
No significant advantage over CUPS (AFAIR).
So would you prefer cups for a printer not shared (for both security and
size reasons) ?
I have no such printers ;-).
unlike many people (such as standalone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Le Samedi 18 Octobre 2003 11:43, Buchan Milne a écrit :
No significant advantage over CUPS (AFAIR).
So would you prefer cups for a printer not shared (for both security
and size reasons) ?
I have no such printers ;-).
unlike many people (such as standalone
I just saw today that pdq was'nt in 9.1
I would like to know when and why it has been removed
is it a 'bad' package? lack of place? too difficult to maintain?
I just saw today that pdq was'nt in 9.1
I would like to know when and why it has been removed
is it a 'bad' package? lack of place? too difficult to maintain?
