Armin Schindler wrote: >>On Sun 13 Nov 2005 09:53, Carlos Antunes wrote: >> >> >>>On 11/13/05, Daniel Swarbrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Carlos Antunes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>My main issue is with the distributions. Not eveyrbody compiles from >>>>>source. For example, the latest and greates debian stable, sarge, coes >>>>>with spandsp 0.0.2pre10-3. Steve has already indicated it's not good >>>>>enough for OpenPBX. So, now what? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Use libspansdsp from -testing or -unstable, and if they still aren't >>>>recent enough, hassle the Debian package maintainer. >>>> >>>> >>>Well, I went back and forth with this on IRC and I have a different take on >>>things. My view is that absolutely necessary components of a digital PBX >>>should be part of it, not external. And DSP definitely fits this bill quite >>>nicely. Otherwise, one might end up with an OpenPBX that is only composed >>>of pbx.c... >>> >>> >>I disagree vehemently with this. PLEASE do not bundle extra software with >>OpenPBX.org >> >> > >Why not? If a special version is needed, then this requirement already >creates that 'bundle'. > > Can you identify anything special which is needed? A certain minimum version is required, which is true of any library dependency. You can't use an old glibc for a program using C99 features, for example. spandsp 0.0.3 differs from spandsp 0.0.2 mostly in providing T.38 support. We are trying to get T.38 support into openpbx, so we don't want to start out supporting spandsp 0.0.2. Because the T.38 features in 0.0.3 demanded some API changes, FAX support in 0.0.3 is not compatible with 0.0.2. However, like other incompatible libraries - gtk1 vs gtk2 for example - library versioning allows multiple spandsp versions to coexist on a machine, if that is needed.
Regards, Steve _______________________________________________ Openpbx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openpbx.org/mailman/listinfo/openpbx-dev
