There are ISPs and service providers that stick with 4.x for performance
(and thus scalability). The perforance gaps may eventually be elminated,
but meanwhile, abandoning 4.x may affect adoption by those that
might use it heavily.
Still, it's understandable that -stable would be the most reasonble focus,
if any. I only mention this to illustrate a trade-off.
Cheers,
Rich
William Lloyd wrote:
Anyone setting up a new server these days is going to be using 5.x
rather than 4.x
Better to have Asterisk work well on one version of FreeBSD than to
kinda work on two.
-bill
On 26-Sep-05, at 7:45 AM, Kim Culhan wrote:
--- Chris Stenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the problem is that the code will become unreadable.
End of Life for 4.X is scheduled for January 2007 with only
critical fixes
being available from now until then.
Support for 4.X is expected to dwindle sooner in the ports tree. It
is not a
requirement for a port to be backwards compatible to be included in
the
ports tree.
As zaptel/asterisk has never run that well under 4.X my vote would
be to
drop support for it.
Absolutely agreed, gonzo what do you think about this ?
-kim
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-BSD mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-BSD mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-BSD mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
