![]() |
Nico Garcia wrote: > >On Mon, 25 May 1998, Dave Parker wrote: > >> Nico Garcia wrote: >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > >> >On Mon, 25 May 1998, Dave Parker wrote: >> > >> >> I haven't been following this thread very closely because I'm running >> >> HylaFAX >> >> 4.0pl2 built from the sources on COL 1.2 with no problems, but how, other >> >> than the lib issues, does 4.0.2-9 differ from 4.0pl2?? >> > >> >Ghostscript location and font locations, "config.site", initialization >> >script, and who knows what else without installing. >> >> You mean that the rpm uses the default linux locations for gs and the >> fonts? It wasn't THAT tough to build everything from the source >> distributions!! > >I'm not sure which HylaFAX RPM's had it correctly set: the default >RedHat Linux for ghostscript fonts, etc., was not included in the >original HylaFAX configuration script. It therefore needed tweaking to >compile, either a symbolic link added or a modified config.site or >modified "configure" script. > >Similarly, the "etc/hylafax.sh" script in the source used locations of >the script inconsistent with RedHat 5.0 and needed tweaking to install >as "hylafax" in /etc/rc.d/init.d/. > >The RedHat 5.1 release is also coming out Real Soon Now. I am >frightened of the implementation of "linuxconf". That broken piece of >GUI !@#$ really, really screwed up my attempt to set up Linux >as a gateway machine from home to my ISP. > >But we should perhaps save efforts to set up an RPM for *THAT*. Hmmm.. I think I'll do a clean install of 5.1 on a virgin machine and try to get HylaFAX built on that and see what happens. It took me a few tries before I finally got it right on COL 1.2, but all it took was a fairly thorough reading of the docs and the humility to assume that the writer knew what he/she was talking about. I guess those two things (reading AND trusting the docs) are not as common as you might think. -- Dave Parker/DLP, Inc dlparker@dlpinc00.com