|
Hylafax Mailing List Archives
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
Re: HylaFAX RPM - voting?
>>>>> On Wed, 27 May 1998, "PW" == Phil Watkinson wrote:
PW> Dear Darren and Nico,
PW> Been following your conversation with interest. I don't know if you are
PW> asking for votes, but here's mine anyway ( hope I haven't missed anything
PW> vital nor been confused about exactly what the choices are):
PW> 1. hylafax-v4.0pl2-1rh5.rpm is the best choice in the circumstances;
PW> (altho' I wonder how many people will think it's v4.0 patch 12 ?). The
PW> binary rpm would be called hylafax-v4.0pl2-1rh5.i386.rpm, n'pas?
Correct. A preliminary hylafax-v4.0pl2-1rh5.i386.rpm is now built. Volunteers?
PW> 2. To include the html documentation, use the fixhtml patch and install
PW> under /usr/doc/hylafax-v4.0pl2/html.
Done, it was installing in /usr/doc/hylafax-v4.0pl2-1rh5/html which is clearly
unconventional.
PW> 3. Not to implement the hosts -> hosts.fax patch.
Am not presently.
PW> 4. To implement the xferstats -> xferfaxstats patch.
Am presently.
PW> 5. To remove the old protocol startup from the default.
Cool! ;-) Am presently.
PW> 6. Launch both hfaxd and faxq from the SysV boot script as default.
Yupper.
PW> Agree definitely that the finished article should be uploaded to both
PW> RedHat contrib and HylaFAX (sgi) contrib directories.
Will do.
PW> Ok, that's it. Would be interesting to hear from someone fairly new to
PW> HylaFAX who has used the existing rpms about what they think are the good
PW> and bad points of installation/faxsetup/configuration?
Yes, it would. Before we do that though, I need to hear from a few volunteers
who can test the current build for rhl5.
Anyone?
-D
