Richard Neese wrote:
> asterisk is upto 1.2.17 and we need to get cought up
and the patches need to
> get sent to the asterisk dev team.
Hi,
Are there a lot of patches for for 1.2.17 that need to go
back to
asterisk-devs for asterisk to build properly, or are they
mostly just
freebsd specific ports tree patches? I can get 1.2.17 to
almost build on
its own, but the files/patch-* stuff inside the port
infrastructure
needs work. I haven't tried to get newest versions of
libpri, zaptel,
etc. to build nor really tested 1.2.17 under very heavy load
(or with
different fxo/fso cards, timing hardware, etc.) or any
serious test that
would make a ports maintainer confident and happy though
> I am working on 1.4.x port and we have it 90% done I
passed the one patch for
> the 1.4 zaptel
I thought this group was testing builds and ports? I'm
certainly not
qualified to substantial send patches upstream to digium but
testing
ports in progress and generating patches that
"bsd-ify" the build is
doable ...
> but 1.2.xx in the ports needs updating so does libpri
zaptel and addons.
> bsd users are getting upset that the ports are falling
behind . I dont knwo who
> to submit things to since sobomax has fallen off the
planet he was the ports
> commiter.
Do port maintainers work with a "coach" who has
commit status for the
ports tree? Maybe the coach/committer could accept changes
vetted by
this group and organize them into updated ports for testing
- along with
other volunteers While
waiting for inclusion into the official ports
tree the changes to Makefiles files/patch-* etc. could be
kept in
subversion on code.google.com or something. My impression
is that this
is already kind of happening but that there's no
"unofficial port that
works" for testing. Is this right?
--
Graham Todd - Bellanet IDRC
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-BSD mailing list
Asterisk-BSDlists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
|
