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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Asterisk-BSD mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-bsd
