Re: flexfax: HylaFAX RPM

[darren.nickerson@balliol.ox.ac.uk]

>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 1998, "NG" == Nico Garcia wrote:

  NG> Umm. It might actually be better to keep updated a source RPM rather than
  NG> an installation RPM. This would give people control over the HylaFAX
  NG> configuration files, and help assure that things get installed right.

Why not just provide both? Many people are uncomfortable with SRPMS. They 
install them and can't figure out where they went!! 8-)

  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> Second and third suggestions: mention the RedHat release,

  NG> hylafax-4.0.2-rh5-9.i386.rpm

Well, perhaps I'll do this for the rh4 one, at the moment the rpm is:

	hylafax-4.0pl2-1.i386.rpm

Votes for hylafax-v4.0pl2-1.i386.rpm  ???? ;-)

At the very least I'll package RH4 and RH5 rpms in separate dirs so there is 
as little confusion as possible.

  NG> And straighten out the ghostscript dependencies: RedHat only requires
  NG> version 2.62 or better, not the 5.10 in the RPM's. In fact, the RPM's for
  NG> RedHat 5.10 are broken: the font distribution is quite different from the
  NG> binary distribution, and the RPM's argue with each other.

Running gs2.62 with HylaFAX is a mistake. >4.x is essential, IMHO, and I see 
nothing wrong with requiring the latest and the greatest. My experience with 
the GS rpms was painless, but I will revisit that before releasing.

  NG> The published RPM should be as clean as possible: I also suggest that
  NG> it use my HTML patches so local HTML documents are mostly corrected for
  NG> Linux use (the manpage suffix number issue for different OS's).

I've pulled all your patches, and will have a look at them tonight.

-Darren