On 2020-10-06 2:22 PM, Joshua C. Colp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jared Smith <jaredsm...@jaredsmith.net
<mailto:jaredsm...@jaredsmith.net>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Dan Jenkins <d...@nimblea.pe
<mailto:d...@nimblea.pe>> wrote:
sorry, I thought I was agreeing with you :) we need to engage
package maintainers to potentially help ease the shift - if
packages are a thing.... but as far as I'm concerned most
package managers have out of date versions of Asterisk, or
don't have things you want so you end up building from source
anyway
I actively package Asterisk for Fedora and EPEL (CentOS/RHEL), and
I work hard to package the latest versions as they are released.
I'm always open to additional input on how to make my packages
more relevant for consumers -- either by packaging additional
modules, or by having better sub-packages. For example, my
packages already have chan_sip and pjsip split off as separate
subpackages.
As a packager and someone who has been in the community and user
world, what's your opinion and thoughts on the 2 year strategy?
Hello,
For us we have debian packages we maintain. We follow the latest stable
version with a test suite and a bot make the package. So 2 years it's
clearly not an issue. About chan_sip we completely removed it.
Sylvain
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
