faulty fax files from new Ghostscript

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi,

ucc02aa@sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
> Fax generation with Ghostscript no longer works under the new Linux.

What is "the new linux"? It works well for numerous people on recent
Linux kernels, with recent libc libraries, and recent ghostscript
versions.

If you mean "the new linux distribution from SuSe", say so. It would
surprise me, though, as I know SUSE is actively using mgetty+sendfax
(and helping me develop it).

> Ghostscript produces faulty files, as can be seen from the error
> messages of Frank Cringle's viewfax and from the way Sendfax fails to
> send them through, ending with an RTN error and nothing sent.

This is a Known Problem, and not related to SUSE Linux, but to GS 3.x
and 4.x in combination with certain input files. See the docs on 
http://www.leo.org/~doering/mgetty/ for details about it and suggested 
fixes.

> I wrote the following to SuSE in German.  Maybe someone from this list
> knows a solution. Unfortunately, the new Linux contains a lot of
> really messy bugs of this sort, about which I am busy reporting.  I am
> glad I didn't throw my old installation away.

Regarding the quality of your mgetty bug reports, I can only say "poor
SUSE hotline".

> Please note that the below-described NOTLOESUNG (workaround solution)

Where is the "below-described"? There was nothing after this paragraph.

> to the problem requires that you work on a level below faxrunq.  I
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huh? I think you still did not understand the scheme behind mgetty's
fax spooler. While it is far from perfect, there is *never* the need
for any "hacks" to "work ... below faxrunq" to fix some G3 files.

Everything that creates G3 files belongs in faxspool (or another
program with similar goals). Faxrunq and the like never manipulate
files, they just send them.

> have written a whole makefile- and shellscript- based TeX menu
> environment that I will make public soon and that needs a hack in
> sendfax which Gert dislikes, telling me to use faxrunq.  

There are lots of things to improve in the fax spooling subsystem,
but even Bodo's heavily improved faxrunqd (which brings in a complete
new functionality) works well within the basic design.  So, yes,
I really dislike "extensions" that do not cooperate with the other
tools. Especially if they are frontends, and if there is a well-
defined interface between frontends and backends ("man faxqueue").

You're free to distribute your staff and patches to sendfax (this
is what free software is all about), but I won't incorporate them
unless they use the existing framework. It would be a nightmare
to maintain.

> I hope to write separately about that soon.

I don't.

gert

-- 
Gert Doering
Mobile communications ... right now writing from *AWAY* :-)) 
+49 177 2160 221   or   gert@greenie.muc.de