M. Ranganathan wrote: > Hi Damian, [...] >> I'll gladly switch to whatever is considered an official release. > > At this point there is no such thing. Only the API ( java.sip* ) have > an official release. The RI is a changing thing. It changes each time > a bug is fixed. I have a volunteer who is adding a "release number" > file to that repository. This will be updated on each "offical" build > and build artifacts will be uploaded to the mvn2 repository on > java.net. >
That will be official maven repo (which is great). But we still need an official source only tarball (no jars inside), from which distros can build RPMs. I think it's OK to use the one I posted for now till we iron out RPM bugs. > > An svn repository is the way to go. Where shall we put it ( here or > java.net ? ). It's actually unrelated to the question of packaging. Even if jain-sip were to be hosted on sipfoundry (which I am sure everybody here would applaud) it still will have to be treated as a 3rd party dependency for sipXecs (similar to freeswitch). I'd like to concentrate purely on packaging issue for now. > > > If we >> are to have any hope of this RPM being accepted by jpackage and/or >> Fedora there has to be a source-only tarball available for download >> without any click-through (see: http://jpackage.org/jpprequest.php). >> >> I did not find anything like that on https://jain-sip.dev.java.net, >> please let me know if I missed something. > > > > http://download.java.net/communications/jain-sip/nightly/ > > has snapshots but I see a src.tar.gz does not exist. I can add that. That would work. > >>>> When I build jain-sip I end up with 4 jars: >>>> >>>> jain-sip-api-1.2.jar jain-sip-ri-1.2.jar nist-sdp-1.0.jar >>>> sip-sdp-1.2.jar >>> >>> oh I should rename the last and call it jain-sip-sdp-1.2.jar >>> >>> >>>> However sipxbridge is using only one: >>>> >>>> jain-sip-sdp-1.2.jar >>> >>> Naturally :-) I prefer a single jar for everything. We never use sip >>> without sdp and we use only one implementation of the standard so >>> putting everything in one jar is sensible. >>> >> I suspect sipXconfig might end up not using SDP jar. And I think it's as >> easy to use one jar as many jars, but it's up to you. > > The problem with multiple jars is that common classes are repeated ( > unless we want to create yet another jar with just a few class files > in it ). As such sdp is pretty small so lugging it in a > jain-sip-sdp.jar it is not too bad > OK. > > [...] >> >> As a reminder, the goal is not to have various jars checked in into lib >> directories of sipXecs repo. > > sipXbridge has a bunch of jars that other components use. > exactly - the goal is to not to check any of them into svn [...] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
