[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       hylafax
Subject:    Re: flexfax: FW: Hylafax - faxq unable to exec faxsend
From:       darren () hylafax ! org
Date:       1999-01-23 20:21:07
[Download RAW message or body]


> > > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, "WHG" == William H. Gilmore wrote:

  WHG> All,

  WHG> I finally gave up on attempting to get the RPM to work on my RH5.2
  WHG> machine.  I have been corresponding with another person who succesfully
  WHG> installed it.  In both of our cases, our configurations were created
  WHG> through the use of "standard" (whatever that means) RPMs.  In tracing
  WHG> through and RPM query on our respective machines, I could find not
  WHG> difference in libraries or external program depended upon by Hylafax.

[snip]

  WHG> I'll offer the following advice for RedHat users.  IF THE DEVELOPED RPM
  WHG> DOES NOT WORK AT FIRST BLUSH, ERASE IT AND COMPILE FROM SCRATCH!!!

  WHG> I would like to challenge someone to take ownership of Hylafax from
  WHG> a Linux perspective.  I realize that we cannot expect SGI to address
  WHG> since it would be a definite conflict of interest.  I will not volunteer
  WHG> myself because I am much more of a SysAdm than a programmer.  However, I
  WHG> will volunteer to help with testing, documentation, and the like.

<vent>
Look buster, if you're going to badmouth my work publicly, perhaps you could approach \
me privately in a slightly more constructive manner? <\vent>

Seriously, I am aware of NO, ZERO, NADA showstoppers with the present RPM besides a \
few dependencies which might confuse the newbies out there. And if you've been \
reading this list at all, as you should before declaring the Linux support dead in \
the water, then you'll be pretty familiar with the simple fix to that confusion.

I'm extremely keen to promote HylaFAX from a linux perspective, and I welcome your \
CONSTRUCTIVE comments on how I may improve the present state of affairs. For \
instance, a detailed description of the problems you have had with the RPM, the \
reasons why you were unable to compile using the SRPM, etc etc.

A new release of the RPM is imminent, but I'm really baffled by the tone of your \
message. The Linux RPM is well supported, I feel, between my efforts on the side and \
those of the list in public, and I think it's a good piece of work. I'm curious to \
know why you feel otherwise.

-Darren


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]