Re: flexfax: HylaFAX RPM

["Mr. Arlington Hewes" <tpcadmin@info.tpc.int>]

Good signature from user "raoul@cirl.meei.harvard.edu".
Signature made 1998/05/26 14:39 GMT using 1024-bit key, key ID 9C808251

atta' boy, welcome back! ;-)


>>>>> On Tue, 26 May 1998, "NG" == Nico Garcia wrote:

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

Hey, that's me btw, in case anyone's confused.

  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-)

  NG> Agreed.

Cool!!! That's one down, 15 to still be thrashed out.

  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.

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

Agreed on the ghostscript front. Everything else was pretty consistent though? 
Might be a bit challenging for me to compile on 'old' redhat, I'll need a few 
volunteers to rpm -i the SRPM and rpm -ba the fella', should be pretty 
painless!

  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 ???? ;-)

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

Perhaps you are right. The best I can do is hylafax-v4.0pl2-1rh5.rpm due to 
RPM's syntax restrictions. Take it or leave it ;-)

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

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

?????? I meant my ftp site would look like:

RH5/README.RH5
RH5/hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.rpm
RH5/hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.src.rpm
RH4/README.RH4
RH4/hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.rpm
RH4/hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.src.rpm

Methinks you misunderstood me? Yes, the cumulative patch applied to each dist 
would be different, but otherwise the SRPMS would be _very_ similar.

  +> 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.

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

I agree - 3.33 worked fine. Sorry.

Hmmm - this becomes a problem very quickly, due the the previously mentioned 
heterogeneity in gs rpms, and the additional fact that I really prefer gs5 
myself. Can you suggest how to handle variations in gs font location etc?

  +> I've pulled all your patches, and will have a look at them tonight.

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

*strut* now going to show it off to my friends. 8-) 

-Darren