[Asterisk-bsd] /usr/local/include/zaptel.h:37:16:os.h: Nosuch file or directory

[Scott Lambert]

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:58:32AM -0700, Preston Garrison wrote:
> It also means you have to wait for someone to update the ports tree, 
> rather then just grabbing and installing the latest yourself.  

Sorry, actually, it doesn't.  Upgrading a port the FreeBSD way is not
at all difficult.  You can make the upgrade locally and submit it via
send-pr(1) and help everybody out.  If the port is easily compilable from
the distfile, it is even easier.  Just bump the port rev, update the MD5
and size, and double check that the packing list (pkg-plist) is correct.
Once the update is in the gnats database, anyone else can use the patch
and update their local copy.

Unlike the Asterisk documentation, FreeBSD's documentation is pretty
thorough.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html

Don't be afraid of the amount of documentation there.  For well written
software, only the "Quick Porting" and "Upgrading" chapters are really
necessary.  Still, the documents exist.  If you have a slow day you may
want to go ahead and read the whole thing.  I did it in three days on
the 45 minute train ride to and from work.

> If a bug pops up it could be days or weeks before its integrated its
> fix into ports, if you know how to compile it yourself, as soon as
> someone fixes it in asterisk, you get the fix.

If you know how to compile it yourself, it doesn't take much extra
effort at all to keep your installed packages database coherent such
that someone else can take over if you get hit by a bus.  Adding a patch
file to the port is trivial.

The reason it takes so long for the asterisk updates to show up in ports
is because so many people have the attitude such as the one you are
displaying in the above message.

Personally, I'm lazy.  I want the package management system to do the
hard work for me.  It's worth my effort to send-pr(1) for any port that I
use which is out of date.  Chances are I'll be installing that port on
multiple systems or have to do a re-install on the same system.  If I
submit the update this time, someone else may decide to use the port
because it is current and beat me to send-pr(1)'ing the next update.

Besides, you get some "fame" from having your name associated with the
update when it is committed.  :-)
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris St Denis <chris at aebc.com>
> Sent: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:44:30 -0700
> 
> Ports is still better.
>
> It keeps the system more clean because it has built in uninstall
> support, keeps track of version tracking of the software and its
> dependencies, and can integrate with portaudit to keep track of
> security vulnerabilities.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-bsd-bounces at lists.digium.com On Behalf Of Preston Garrison
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 1:55 AM
> 
> Reverse the order of that, but there is really no reason to use ports.
> Asterisk itself compiles fine on freebsd with no need for ports.  Just
> grab stable from the CVS.  If you need libpri and zaptel, that needs
> to be installed from ports.

-- 
Scott Lambert                    KC5MLE                       Unix SysAdmin
lambert at lambertfam.org