Firstly, thanks for continuing to provide a superior piece of VOIP software.
I have a couple of small and unrequested suggestions:
1: have make current after the svn update do ` (./configure make) || (./boostrap.sh configure make)` instead of what it does now which is presumably the first
To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Make current fails (build 13537)
NO its not a bad one at all. Its switch_nat_init(); in switch_core.c since
your network must be eating the packets its sending out to detect if you're
Its coming soon!
/b
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:23 AM, David Knell wrote:
At the risk of evisceration (but with the intention of helping avoid
future brain dead build vs. idiot admin debates), I'd suggest that,
when significant new bits are added to the switch core, they should
default to being
-users-boun...@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian
West
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:33 PM
To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Make current fails (build 13537)
NO its not a bad one at all. Its switch_nat_init(); in switch_core.c since
your network must
We are working to correct it. So hold on ;)
/b
On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Lars Zeb wrote:
Brian,
I’m probably not the only one here, but much of what I have to do to
get Freeswitch going is new to me. Never installed or really worked
with Linux and scripting; just a little xml. It is
You now have -nonat and the hang on start up with the nat detection
code is fixed now.
/b
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Nik Middleton wrote:
As Anthony comments later, using SVN for updates is usually a risky
business for most projects. We all have been blessed by fantastic
coding to date
Well I can only assume build 13537 is brain dead. Surely I shouldn't
have to edit a whole bunch of configs to get it working. FS now takes 3
minutes to start, with no indication as to what it's looking for in the
logs. That said, to date 'make current' has always worked well for me.
Guess I was
NO its not a bad one at all. Its switch_nat_init(); in switch_core.c
since your network must be eating the packets its sending out to
detect if you're behind nat or not... and not getting an ICMP
unreachable like it should be getting... the joys of admins that block
all ICMP like idiots.
