@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ghostscript-8.70-14.el5_8.1.x86_64 hylafax+
5.5.3
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:22:23 +1200
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
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Gregory P. Ennis po...@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
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
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
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Gregory P. Ennis po...@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
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 po...@pomec.net wrote:
On
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
