Re: flexfax: Hylafax rpm issues

[Dave Wreski <dave@nic.com>]

> First, let me say it is nice that someone is willing to spend the time to
> put together a "rpm" for Linux.  

Hmm.. From the rest of your message, that sounds like a loaded compliment.

> My second question would be..., are you willing to support it yourself
> for the next eternity?

Are you actually a linux user?  Everyone knows the package maintainer is simply
the package maintainer, not the content.

> I have been involved with HylaFAX since the old FlexFAX days.  It has been
> wonderful that for many of the issues involved, it didn't matter what
> platform the software was installed on, because all platforms were basically
> alike.  I have been the Beta Binary person for AIX for ages.

So where was your help with the package when he was building it?

> I knew where I could recommend someone to look if there was a problem, 
> regardless of the operating system.
> 
> You are reducing the ability of the mailing list to support Linux users of
> HylaFAX by arbitrairly deciding to do things that are specific to your 
> implementation.

I think there was some previous conversation about the changes he was going to
make to the package before he put it together, that you must have missed
objecting to then.

> It might come down to the point of "I don't know, contact Ramana, the guy
> who set up the RPM", because I have no idea where the "hfaxd.conf" file 
> is installed when they use your RPM.

I didn't when attempting to use the last RPM that was produced.

> One MAJOR issue I have is that you are recommending that people NOT RUN 
> FAXSETUP & FAXADDMODEM ???
> 
> These programs do EXTENSIVE testing of the system to ensure it is set up
> properly.  They probe the modem & make most of the decisions for the end
> user.

Wouldn't it be nice to attempt to make hylafax as easy to use and
install/maintain as possible?  After all, he listed the implications of using
the package and what changes were made.  This is not a substitute for not
reading the documentation.

> IF THEY CAN'T PROBE THE MODEM, THEN THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!!
> AND NOTHING WILL WORK PERIOD!!!.

OH MY GOSH-GOLLY!  Somehow I bet he tested it on his box first, and it most
likely was one step closer to being perfect than the last RPM that was built. 
Again, he can suggest that you don't probe the modem, but that doesn't mean you
don't have to read the documentation, and probe the modem yourself.

> As to editing modem scripts by hand, that is absolutely insane.  If people
> accept the defaults to faxaddmodem, they will get a system that works.  If
> the start playing with the files themselves, god knows what they are going
> to change in a "desperate" attempt to get the modem working.

And the earth is round.  Ha, no one would ever think something could be made
easier to maintain.  Apparently RPM == Linux idiot.

> Granted, for many NO-NAME fax modems out there, the config files may have to 
> be edited, but that is not what HylaFAX was designed for.  It is a ROBUST
> fax package, that works with GOOD QUALITY fax modems.   I have NEVER had to
> manually edit a modem config file unless I made a typo in faxaddmodem that
> I didn't catch.  If you have had to manually edit a modem config file for 
> anything other than the tagline or whatever, then I wonder why?

And don't you think the HylaFAX maintainers would be happy to see someone else
got his piece of shit modem working with it?  There are no stipluations as to
which modems absolutely must not be used under no circumstances, because there
is a chance you may have to edit a text file or two.

> If you are looking for a simple fax package, people should be using some
> other
> package.

Yeah, like Windows FAX, right?  After all, this is meant to be difficult, and
only Windows programs are easy to use.

> Remember, a software package is only as good as the support that it gets,
> and these (HylaFAX )non-standard locations and naming conventions would 
> ( in my opinion ) reduce the ability of the mailing list to support the 
> package.

Again, who says support is bound to the package maintainer?  I'm sure he's
included the documentation with it.

> Also, were you aware that we are currently working on a new patch level 
> for HylaFAX?

Possibly you should have spoken up last week when he announced development of
the new RPM.  Besides, are you discouraging him from getting a head start on
development?  Do you know exactly when its going to be released?  Possibly it
might help a few people in the meantime.

Again, the reason for building an RPM is to simplify the build process, and
make an attempt at making configuration easier.  There is nothing to bound him
to this package, and it certainly isn't a substitute for reading the manual.

After all, do we all go to RedHat after they bundle samba, and it doesn't work
out-of-the-box with our servers?  Oh my gosh, I have to edit the samba
configuration file, and configure my server name.  Who's the President of
RedHat Software, Inc?  I want his direct phone number!  I want my money back.

Dave