On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to summarize the current state of things as "we
> need a spec file for Asterisk"?
At one point, there was an awful .spec file in the Asterisk sources...
hopefully it's not around any more.
Jared,
I just looked through the EPEL website at EPEL6 and EPEL7, only found
Asterisk 1.8. Can you point me to the spec file you are using or an
SRPM?
Thanks,
Corey
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Matthew
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Steve Edwards > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Steve Edwards <
asterisk@sedwards.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Steve Edwards
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Steve Edwards
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Leif Madsen wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I wrote up a lengthy blog post that likely borders on
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> Yay!
>
> I notice in a bug report that the response talks about a Bug Marshal. I
> am very happy that we have bug marshals back in the process. Is there a
> document somewhere outlining the process of becoming one and
Hey Corey!
The way it works is that major versions of Asterisk (and same with other
packages) are associated with specific releases of Fedora and RHEL, which
means the major versions are "stuck" to those releases.
However, you can still build the newer version of Asterisk by pulling the
spec
As far as I'm aware, bug marshals never went away. It's possible there has
been less involvement than previously, but I'm not sure anything has ever
happened to preclude a bug marshal from acting in the project.
I believe Rusty Newton is kind of the "de facto" bug marshal, as he's been
doing the