On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 12:59 -0400, Mossman, Paul (CAR:9D30) wrote: > Scott wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 08:07 -0400, Paul Mossman wrote: > > > Damian wrote: > > > > > > Do you know that we already use http to server SNOM profiles? > > > > You may want to have a look at how it's done. > > > > > > No I did not, and thought we were actually hoping to get > > rid of apache. > > > > What we want to get rid of is the hijacking of any system > > apache on port 80. It would be perfectly ok to run another > > instance on another port, and if that's the easiest way to > > deliver phone profiles, that's fine. > > Would it be acceptable to make the hijacking ports 80 and 443 optional? > i.e. Overrideable with configure build script arguments.
I think so, yes. --use-http-port <n> --use-https-port <n> > 80 and 443 would be the defaults, and we'd use these in our ISO builds. > But development environments and other non-ISO installs could use > whatever ports are appropriate. Since the ISO images are built with the same RPMs that are available in the yum repositories, this would imply that those too hijack the ports. This would allow developers and those building installers for special environments to do something different in the build process. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
