Re: flexfax: HylaFAX RPM

[Nico Garcia <raoul@cirl.meei.harvard.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 26 May 1998 darren.nickerson@balliol.ox.ac.uk wrote:

>   NG> Umm. It might actually be better to keep updated a source RPM rather than
>   NG> an installation RPM. This would give people control over the HylaFAX
>   NG> configuration files, and help assure that things get installed right.
> 
> Why not just provide both? Many people are uncomfortable with SRPMS. They 
> install them and can't figure out where they went!! 8-)

Agreed.

>   NG> There are so *MANY* possible configurations for Linux, even RedHat, that
>   NG> it might be better to keep it up-to-date as source code.
> 
> ??? So many possible configurations? Not that bad, for RedHat, in my 
> experience . . . pretty homogeneous actually.

4.0 through 5.1, locations for RPM vs. locally compiled ghostscript,
/usr/local/bin vs. /usr/sbin binaries, etc.

>   NG> Second and third suggestions: mention the RedHat release,
> 
>   NG> hylafax-4.0.2-rh5-9.i386.rpm
> 
> Well, perhaps I'll do this for the rh4 one, at the moment the rpm is:
> 
> 	hylafax-4.0pl2-1.i386.rpm
> 
> Votes for hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.i386.rpm  ???? ;-)

I vote hylafax-4.0pl2-rh5-1.i386.rpm, due to the various RedHat versions
out there.

> At the very least I'll package RH4 and RH5 rpms in separate dirs so there is 
> as little confusion as possible.

This will help, but may not be sufficient. A lot of the stuff in each of those
dirs is not properly included in the other.

>   NG> And straighten out the ghostscript dependencies: RedHat only requires
>   NG> version 2.62 or better, not the 5.10 in the RPM's. In fact, the RPM's for
>   NG> RedHat 5.10 are broken: the font distribution is quite different from the
>   NG> binary distribution, and the RPM's argue with each other.
> 
> Running gs2.62 with HylaFAX is a mistake. >4.x is essential, IMHO, and I see 
> nothing wrong with requiring the latest and the greatest. My experience with 
> the GS rpms was painless, but I will revisit that before releasing.

What? The distribution 3.33 in RedHat 5.0 worked great, and the
contributed gs-5.10 RPM's and fonts in the published RedHat ftp site
were inconsistent with each other and could not be installed. It caused
real grief. Please don't insist that people do unnecessary upgrades
of their software, since we don't have control over the quality of
the published contributed versions.

>   NG> The published RPM should be as clean as possible: I also suggest that
>   NG> it use my HTML patches so local HTML documents are mostly corrected for
>   NG> Linux use (the manpage suffix number issue for different OS's).
> 
> I've pulled all your patches, and will have a look at them tonight.

Good man. Give yourself a gold star....

			Nico Garcia
			Senior Engineer, CIRL 
			Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary
			raoul@cirl.meei.harvard.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNWrT7D/+ItycgIJRAQEcFAP/f3v6x27yNmKydylB4mTu/Dt/1CcHWRRY
+z19ZyiV8jePOH8aO0aP28wYTwx7p89aR0gnpgzelCUFasDejj4UqPrKGmow28eP
KBRIwSNd45kDbjX77hM8/aM92eZTolanKJvNL9bZXPGrc38tBIMC651kqnJHjsj4
Ogj6x9h74yg=
=tEd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----