Hylafax review issues

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> writes:

HdG> Well the question here IMHO is not so much how to name the
HdG> package as it is which fork to package, making them parallel
HdG> installable will be very hard todo and AFAIK we don't want
HdG> conflicting packages.

I agree that it would be very difficult to make them able to be
installed at the same time, but if the hylafax authors or some other
interested party decided to submit their software I don't see why we'd
turn them away just because someone who forked their package decided
not to change the name of the binaries.

HdG> I believe that hylafax+ best fits Fedora.

I don't see any point in attempting to decide which of many choices
fits Fedora; hylafax+ is simply the only one that's been submitted.

For comparison, Debian and Ubuntu don't seem to ship hylafax+; they
ship hylafax and in addition split the package into -client, -server
and -doc subpackages (which may be worth considering here).

Gentoo has ebuilds for both hylafax and hylafax+ named accordingly.

I'm not sure how to check Suse.

Also of some importance, I think, is the fact that you can visit
hylafax.org and download source and binary packages for Fedora (up to
F7 at least) and they're named, you guessed it, "hylafax".  I've no
clue why they haven't submitted them to Fedora proper, but the folks
who do (or maybe sponsor) that packaging work actually request that
the hylafax+ package be named "hylafax+".
http://www.hylafax.org/content/Fedora_Packages

 - J<