Created attachment 157813 [details] modem config file
I have some problem: [root@hylafax /var/spool/hylafax]# faxgetty ttyIAX9 Assertion failed: (x == lastx), function _TIFFFax3fillruns, file tif_fax3.c, line 452. Abort trap [plm@hylafax /var/spool/hylafax]# freebsd-version 10.1-RELEASE-p14 [plm@hylafax /var/spool/hylafax]# uname -a FreeBSD hylafax 10.1-RELEASE-p10 FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p10 #0: Wed May 13 06:54:13 UTC 2015 root@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 [plm@hylafax /var/spool/hylafax]# pkg info hylafax hylafax-6.0.6_3 Name : hylafax Version : 6.0.6_3 Installed on : Thu Jul 9 15:37:48 MSK 2015 Origin : comms/hylafax Architecture : freebsd:10:x86:64 Prefix : /usr/local Categories : comms
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Thu Aug 18 20:40:41 UTC 2016 New revision: 420424 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/420424 Log: comms/hylafax: Mark broken (runtime failure to receive faxes) PR: 200922 Changes: head/comms/hylafax/Makefile
Presumably this will be removed after 6 months unless somebody fixes it. Binary packages will not longer be provided.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4) (In reply to commit-hook from comment #3) Please immediately undo your marking of the port as broken. Marking a port as broken based on two utterly vague year old fault reports is dumb. Hylafax is working fine for us on 10.3 inbound and outbound.
One is suspicious, two leans towards confirming. What's "dumb" is the maintainer of the port IGNORING both complaints with no response at all. The second report even includes a specific assertion, it's not "vague" at all. Did you analyze it? These "two year old" reports are still valid because the version of hylaxfax hasn't changed since June 2012. This platform is FreeBSD 10. Have you *any* analysis on this at all? It seems to me this is a case of "works for me therefore your reports are invalid" The demanding tone isn't helping. Ignoring bug reports are the basis of "maintainer timeouts" which is how we determine the port really isn't maintained at all. Even if you don't know the fix, as a maintainer you're expected to respond to PRs, otherwise how does anybody know that you saw them, have analyzed them, and made a conclusion on them? pimshka, rich: Is it possible for you guys to re-test this and see if it is still happening on your setups? Dave, do you use "faxgetty ttyIAX9" command? maybe that one in particular is broken and you haven't hit it yet. It just seems possible you are dismissing potentially real issues because you haven't hit them yet.
hmm, I need to clarify something. There is no maintainer! Dave is just some random person calling me dumb for reacting to a PR of an unmaintained port.
Re-open per comment 5
A commit references this bug: Author: koobs Date: Sat Aug 20 12:41:56 UTC 2016 New revision: 420508 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/420508 Log: comms/hylafax: Mark Un'BROKEN, Take MAINTAINER'ship * Mark Un'BROKEN * Take MAINTAINERSHIP PR: 200922 Requested by: Dave <dave at ci com au> Changes: head/comms/hylafax/Makefile
very quick verification made, I can confirm hylafax is broken, and it just does not work, due to incompatibilities with libtiff recurrent ABI breakage. hylafax seems a dead project since 2012 and has been replaced by hylafax+ long ago. The port should be removed (or fixed) and replaced by hylafax+
I'll look into it Baptiste, thank you for the hints
With the assumption that bapt is correct and this port is indeed broken, that means my correct commit was reverted in error. I didn't say anything for 7 days to give time to either find a fix or once again mark the port broken. I think sufficient time has passed. If the port is broken, and we know it's broken, it should be marked broken. We don't do people any favors by pretending otherwise.
koobs: ping after 5 months. Are you alive?
=> hylafax seems a dead project since 2012 and has been replaced by hylafax+ long ago. Close?
^Triage: there has been no feedback on this PR for over 2 years.