[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Hylafax review issues



On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 14:00 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j w r degoede 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.

> 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.
ACK.

> 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.
SuSE ships "hylafax", originating from www.hylafax.org's hylafax-4.*
tarballs with many patches having been added.

Ralf




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]