Re: flexfax: HylaFAX RPM

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

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

On Tue, 26 May 1998, Mr. Arlington Hewes wrote:

>   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!

I was planning on upgrading to RH 5.1 pretty soon. I may not have time
before June 13th, when I marry. If I do, I'll take a shot at the
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 ;-)

Taken.

>   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

Oh, I see. I thought you would be submitting it to the RedHat contrib
site as well: that site has numerous packages that may or may not
run under the other version, and are not necessarily available
for both.

>   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?

One tweak, in the configure file, in my patch directory, adds the
right check for the new location in 4.2 and 5.0. Can't speak for every
other OS or version in the world, but I think it'll do it: RedHat is
now installing "share" stuff ini "/usr/share" instead of
"/usr/local/share".

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

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

iQCVAwUBNWsw1j/+ItycgIJRAQGyRwP7BBerLK7WwCi+XhGrCjvfYGkvtN/hepNv
DLq5MjM/wnCUFuLMStmIy/9XXgGmrtzwmsE14RkX9dPylLH3VdLD/f1JzIKCeEQW
dHwpl4UaPLnu4DNSse84FpQxBJMn/R4Ja6+2ymWo6YprE2F1WlzAP30r0nownpKA
ISVbnyovuo4=
=FVVm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----