Re: flexfax: Hylafax rpm issues

[Dave Wreski <dave@nic.com>]

On 22-Oct-97 "Mr. Arlington Hewes" wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, "DW" == Dave Wreski wrote:
> 
>   +> My second question would be..., are you willing to support it yourself
>   +> for the next eternity?
> 
>   DW> Are you actually a linux user?  Everyone knows the package maintainer
>   DW> is simply the package maintainer, not the content.
> 
> I must agree with Steve here, Ramana has set the precedent of deviating from
> traditional HylaFAX build conventions, even to the point of renaming one
> of the scripts. In effect, he has become the content maintainer. There's
> no telling where this will lead. As a RedHat Linux user (before you start
> trying to drag me through the mud), I'm concerned that the 'official' RPM
> will be different enough from the rest of the packages that it will not be
> possible for us to support newbies who speak up in this forum.

Ok, first I didn't mean to be hasty in passing judgement.  Sorry if my tone was
harsh.  I was very focused on Steve's points about it seemingly not being worth
the effort for various reasons...

Anyway, I haven't looked at the RPM itself; I already have HylaFAX installed. 
I really didn't realize he changed as much as he did in the RPM.  I certainly
would not suggest leaving programs out, for instance.  This certainly becomes
the package maintainers responsiblity at that point to be bound to maintaining
it.

As far as the /usr vs /usr/local, that is a Linux Filesystem Standard, not
specifically a RedHat standard.  The FSSTND states that after a new
installation, /usr/local should be emtpy, except for the directory names. 
Ramana also intended this to go into the stock RH configuration.

Incidentally, I really doubt that will ever happen, because of the nature and
difficulty of installing it currently.

> Changes such as renaming xferstats should be addressed in this forum, and 
> changed in the master distribution, if justified.

Again, I shouldn't have assumed they already were before he built the package,
but I do not discount his efforts at making it one step closer.  Its certainly
not time to be announced to general public.

> I support much of what Ramana has done. In particular, sticking to RPM 
> tradition and wishing to be included in the next RedHat release are 
> admirable ambitions, and will do much to further the cause of us HylaFAX 
> evangelists. However, I do feel he's being a bit reactionary in making 
> sweeping changes based on minimal discussion.

As far as the /usr/hyla, which is certainly silly.  /var/spool/fax should
remain.  Possibly ./fax/hylafax and ./fax/otherfax, etc.

I also think changing the names are not worthwhile.  Possibly
/usr/share/hylafax, which is also a FSSTND, should be adopted to Linux-specific
installations.  This directory contains arch-independant data, like ghostscript
fonts, system-wide config information, etc..

See ya on the RH list.
Dave