I am having some problems with hylafax+ on CentOS 5.9 converting files into appropriate tiff files that are faxable; the problem is apparently fixed in ghostscript 9.07.
The CentOS repositories currently have ghostscript-8.70-14.el5_8.1.x86_64
I surely appreciate the maintainers of the repositories; can any of you direct me to whom maintains ghostscript on the repository or when 9.07 is planned to be included. I would also like to request that ghostpcl be included, but I am not certain who or how to ask.
Thanks for your assistance.
Greg Ennis
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 15:56:10 -0500 Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
I surely appreciate the maintainers of the repositories; can any of you direct me to whom maintains ghostscript on the repository or when 9.07 is planned to be included. I would also like to request that ghostpcl be included, but I am not certain who or how to ask.
Major version bumps in the "core" Centos packages are relatively uncommon, barring major bugs and the like. We may (or may not) see ghostscript 9.x in Centos 7 when it is released but I would be somewhat surprised to see it in Centos 6 and below.
If you really need the latest version you may be able to compile it yourself. I do that with some of the software that I use on my Centos systems.
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 15:56:10 -0500 Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
I surely appreciate the maintainers of the repositories; can any of you direct me to whom maintains ghostscript on the repository or when 9.07 is planned to be included. I would also like to request that ghostpcl be included, but I am not certain who or how to ask.
Major version bumps in the "core" Centos packages are relatively uncommon, barring major bugs and the like. We may (or may not) see ghostscript 9.x in Centos 7 when it is released but I would be somewhat surprised to see it in Centos 6 and below.
If you really need the latest version you may be able to compile it yourself. I do that with some of the software that I use on my Centos systems. -------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank,
Thanks for your reply. I was afraid that might be the answer. So far it looks like a major problem with hylafax+. I have very little experience compiling my own versions, and my results have not resulting in bragging rituals. Looks like I have some things to learn. Is there a way to be able to compile the 9.07 in different directories so that I do not destroy 8.70 or the libraries.
Greg
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:28:55 -0500 Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
Is there a way to be able to compile the 9.07 in different directories so that I do not destroy 8.70 or the libraries.
Of course. You can simply compile the tarball or the rpm, assuming that your system has all of the required dependencies (or that you can install them).
On 08/04/2013 11:38 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:28:55 -0500 Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
Is there a way to be able to compile the 9.07 in different directories so that I do not destroy 8.70 or the libraries.
Of course. You can simply compile the tarball or the rpm, assuming that your system has all of the required dependencies (or that you can install them).
You could start with Ghostscript from Fedora 19, it has 9.07
source rpm : http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/3/srodzaj/2/search/ghostscript-9.07-3.f...
i686 version: http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21816498/dir/fedora_19/com/ghost...
x86_64 version: http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21816499/dir/fedora_19/com/ghost...
First try installing compiled rpm on a TEST system, and if that does not work you can try recompiling the source rpm, or ask someone to help you, maybe maintainer of ghostscript in Fedora.
On 8/4/2013 3:09 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
First try installing compiled rpm on a TEST system, and if that does not work you can try recompiling the source rpm, or ask someone to help you, maybe maintainer of ghostscript in Fedora.
if you rebuild it via the RPM, it likely will overwrite the 'stock' ghostscript.
a tarball install could be built to run in /usr/local/ghostscript/... or /opt/mystuff/ghostscript/... or whatever, and not interfere with the distribution build.
On 08/05/2013 12:26 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 8/4/2013 3:09 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
First try installing compiled rpm on a TEST system, and if that does not work you can try recompiling the source rpm, or ask someone to help you, maybe maintainer of ghostscript in Fedora.
if you rebuild it via the RPM, it likely will overwrite the 'stock' ghostscript.
a tarball install could be built to run in /usr/local/ghostscript/... or /opt/mystuff/ghostscript/... or whatever, and not interfere with the distribution build.
That is true if hylafax can be pointed to use optional version of ghostcript.
If that is not the case, then ghostscript has to be replaced.
P.S. I am not a hylafax user so I can not determine what should be done.
On 08/05/2013 12:26 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 8/4/2013 3:09 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
First try installing compiled rpm on a TEST system, and if that does not work you can try recompiling the source rpm, or ask someone to help you, maybe maintainer of ghostscript in Fedora.
if you rebuild it via the RPM, it likely will overwrite the 'stock' ghostscript.
a tarball install could be built to run in /usr/local/ghostscript/... or /opt/mystuff/ghostscript/... or whatever, and not interfere with the distribution build.
That is true if hylafax can be pointed to use optional version of ghostcript.
If that is not the case, then ghostscript has to be replaced.
P.S. I am not a hylafax user so I can not determine what should be done.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone,
Thanks so much for everyone's help !!!!
I am a new hylafax+ user and other than the ghostscript problem I am very impressed. Hylafax+ does allow you to control the location of ghostscript so once I get it compiled I should be able to point it to the correct version. Instead of using the Fedora RPM, I am going to compile it and try to route the files to a different location. I really screwed up a different system trying to do an rpm install with a Fedora module with a different piece of software. I am a little gun shy about doing that again.
I am using Hylafax+ on CentOS 5.9 to replace a vsifax system installed on SCO. If I can get ghostscript 9.07 installed properly this will be a very good replacement.
If any of you have additional suggestions, I sure appreciate your help.
Greg
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Gregory P. Ennis PoMec@pomec.net wrote:
I am a new hylafax+ user and other than the ghostscript problem I am very impressed. Hylafax+ does allow you to control the location of ghostscript so once I get it compiled I should be able to point it to the correct version. Instead of using the Fedora RPM, I am going to compile it and try to route the files to a different location. I really screwed up a different system trying to do an rpm install with a Fedora module with a different piece of software. I am a little gun shy about doing that again.
I am using Hylafax+ on CentOS 5.9 to replace a vsifax system installed on SCO. If I can get ghostscript 9.07 installed properly this will be a very good replacement.
If any of you have additional suggestions, I sure appreciate your help.
It doesn't help with this particular problem, but is there some reason for using CentOS 5.x vs. 6.x?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Gregory P. Ennis PoMec@pomec.net wrote:
I am a new hylafax+ user and other than the ghostscript problem I am very impressed. Hylafax+ does allow you to control the location of ghostscript so once I get it compiled I should be able to point it to the correct version. Instead of using the Fedora RPM, I am going to compile it and try to route the files to a different location. I really screwed up a different system trying to do an rpm install with a Fedora module with a different piece of software. I am a little gun shy about doing that again.
I am using Hylafax+ on CentOS 5.9 to replace a vsifax system installed on SCO. If I can get ghostscript 9.07 installed properly this will be a very good replacement.
If any of you have additional suggestions, I sure appreciate your help.
It doesn't help with this particular problem, but is there some reason for using CentOS 5.x vs. 6.x?
Dear Les,
Please accept my apology for not responding to your not a long time ago. I was very disappointed in that I could not get Centos 6 to boot on this machine. It is a SuperMicro with a SCSI drive. In fact, I could not even get Centos 5.9 to boot on this machine as well, I had to go back to 5.0 to even get the installation started. The problem was related to not being able to boot from a SCSI drive. I was very surprised.
In my research about this, I got the impression that SCSI drives were not going to be supported beyond 5.0 (not sure but I think the cut off was 5.2).
Greg
Greg, I haven't sent a fax in ages, so my suggestion would be to take a step back and see if you still need to use fax. You may still have a need for it, but I'm just suggesting that you think about it!
Cheers,
Cliff
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Gregory P. Ennis PoMec@pomec.net wrote:
On 08/05/2013 12:26 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 8/4/2013 3:09 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
First try installing compiled rpm on a TEST system, and if that does not work you can try recompiling the source rpm, or ask someone to help you, maybe maintainer of ghostscript in Fedora.
if you rebuild it via the RPM, it likely will overwrite the 'stock' ghostscript.
a tarball install could be built to run in /usr/local/ghostscript/... or /opt/mystuff/ghostscript/... or whatever, and not interfere with the distribution build.
That is true if hylafax can be pointed to use optional version of ghostcript.
If that is not the case, then ghostscript has to be replaced.
P.S. I am not a hylafax user so I can not determine what should be done.
Everyone,
Thanks so much for everyone's help !!!!
I am a new hylafax+ user and other than the ghostscript problem I am very impressed. Hylafax+ does allow you to control the location of ghostscript so once I get it compiled I should be able to point it to the correct version. Instead of using the Fedora RPM, I am going to compile it and try to route the files to a different location. I really screwed up a different system trying to do an rpm install with a Fedora module with a different piece of software. I am a little gun shy about doing that again.
I am using Hylafax+ on CentOS 5.9 to replace a vsifax system installed on SCO. If I can get ghostscript 9.07 installed properly this will be a very good replacement.
If any of you have additional suggestions, I sure appreciate your help.
Greg
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Cliff,
Thanks for taking the time to offer help, I apologize for not seeing your note a long time ago. Unfortunately, there are many of our clients that prefer fax transmissions over e-mail. The only reason that for this that makes any sense is that a successful fax transmission or an incomplete fax transmission can be processed with a log entry so that there is proof of a successful fax.
Obviously this can be done via a return receipt in e-mail but the receiver of the e-mail may not elect to do a return receipt which means a log entry of receipt is not 100%.
Also, there are just still a bunch of clients that communicate via fax and not e-mail, as much as I would prefer e-mail.
-
Cliff Pratt -
Frank Cox -
Gregory P. Ennis -
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic