On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Kevin Thorley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:55 -0400, Andy Spitzer wrote: >> Woof! >> >> In the beginning, we looked at JAIN-SIP and saw that it was good. >> > [...] >> >> Oh wise and merciful keepers of JAIN-SIP, can you point the way to >> salvation for this confused and weary pilgrim? >> >> --Woof! > > I am neither wise, merciful, nor a keeper of JAIN-SIP. However, I can > say that it is the opinion of the sipXconfig team that the RPM approach > is the way to go. In sipXconfig we use the RPM version of JAIN-SIP (as > well as some other packages such as commons-net). > > Kevin > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >
O one that Woofs! Behold I am the keeper of JAIN but verily I do not keep the RPMs there unto. Forsooth it was thusly explained unto me that jars shall not be included into repositories in keeping with the customs of the land if we wish to be included in distributions of the metaphysical future. I witness several jars other than JAIN-SIP that reside upon the commons (as mere commoners are wont to do). Therefore I do ponder upon the practicality of that goal of a pristine distribution in the near future as by Jingo, there is no half measure in meeting it. Thusly I have spoken. -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
