Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is never anything wrong with fixing some bugs and leaving others > for later. It is normally a bad idea to delay an upload that fixes > bug A just because you haven't fixed bug B yet. Many of the bugs are claimed to be fixed, but the merge and tests

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As you may appreciate for a package without an upstream release for > a long time, there are a quite a few bugs to squash. Maybe I will > give up on some for now just to upload and avoid Matej's attention. There is never anything wrong with fixing some bugs an

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Indeed. efax is better than the alternatives for many users. > > The recent emails from Matej did not reach me. I expect people to > try another route when it's so obvious that the emails weren't seen, As evidenced by your reply on August 24? And August 15 is

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

Indeed. efax is better than the alternatives for many users. The recent emails from Matej did not reach me. I expect people to try another route when it's so obvious that the emails weren't seen, before calling for package removal, which should be last resort. As you may appreciate for a package

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

> It doesn't work with mgetty-fax or HylaFAX [1]? Or did you mean that > those are not standalone and easy-to-use? both. mgetty.info explains how cls2 is the only way to go and how cls1 will never be supported. I remember having some problem with hylafax, too, but it was before mgetty, and thus n

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please do not remove efax. efax/efax-gtk > is the only normal and easy to use standalone > desktop machine program that also works with cheap class 1 > linmodems like the one I have (a pct789). It doesn't work with mgetty-fax or HylaFAX [1]? Or

Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax

> an upstream release in 5 years [1], it chokes on files produced by > dvi2fax [2], and we have better maintained alternatives [3] [4]. > > [1] > [2] > [3] > [4]