I would agree that bristuff shouldn't be in the main port however the
main port was sponsored by a company that wanted it. It doesn't work
with many "active" ISDN cards. Infact the chan_capi bundled with
BRIstuff breaks builds on some setups, (eg where the default capi20.h
belongs to C4B).
Regards. Cian.
On 25 Apr 2006, at 19:53, Thomas Sandford wrote:
"Vahan Yerkanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Sandford wrote:
If you are not fussed about the bristuff patches, you can use my
updated version of the port at
http://www.paradisegreen.co.uk/asterisk/
[actually IMHO the bristuff should _not_ be in the official port,
or at least should be a separate port,
precisely because it doesn't seem to track the official releases,
and so holds FreeBSD back to an
old version of Asterisk].
[sobomax - feel free to lift all or any of this version to
include in the official port]
I second this. Not everyone uses bristuff - it can be made an
option like ODBC and H323 is now.
Shortly after writing the original message above I filed a PR
formally proposing the change to separate ports for the bristuffed
asterisk/libpri (right about the time that Cian Hughes pointed out
to me that libpri now also needed bristuff removing to build 1.2.7.1).
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/96315
--
Thomas Sandford
_______________________________________________
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
