Re: flexfax: Mail to Fax

[Darren Nickerson <darren@info.tpc.int>]

In message <199908270734.IAA08896@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, David Woolley writes:
>> 
>> Can anyone point me in the right direction as to how the mail2fax parts work
>> in Hylafax 4.1beta-rh6?Sendmail seems to be configured with the fax part,
>
>In my view, people should not create binary RPMs of beta software.
>Please take your questions to the maintainer of that RPM.  If software
>is truly beta, it should only be used by people with the system management
>skills to do first line diagnosis.


*sigh* never one to miss on opportunity to (over)state one's case, are we? 
David, there are very clear reasons why for the most recent release of RedHat 
Linux (RedHat 6.0), 4.1beta1 is the distribution of choice. There are NO known 
issues on this platform in terms of stability, and it's impossible to justify 
using a heavily-patched archaic 4.0pl2 distribution which has known 
showstopping errors. Not to mention the fact that it's exceedingly difficult 
to compile on RedHat 6. A new release of the RPM was necessary the day 6.0 was 
released, and I'll be damned if I was going to put another 4.0pl2 out there :-)

You are, of course, entitled to your option. Being familiar with the 4.1beta1 
distribution as I am, and the changes effected therein, I'm confident it's the 
clear winner. Until you join hylafax-devel@hylafax.org, grab the CVS and spot 
a showstopping bug (like tagline encoding) then I really wish you would stop 
recommending that RedHat linux users use 4.0pl2.


>Generally hylafax is documented on the basis that the user is a 
>traditional Unix system manager; anyone producing binary versions
>has a responsibility to write additional documentation suitable for
>plug and play users.

IMHO the sooner you accept that the various flavours of Linux have collectively
drawn amateurs into the world of *NIX the better . . . this concept of a
"traditional Unix system manager" is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and we 
as a community would be remiss in not at least trying to make this package 
easier to install, configure and use.

Oh, and suggesting that binary package maintainers should have to describe the
inner workings of sendmail m4 macros is a cop-out by the way.

-Darren