[asterisk-dev] Optional api and weak symbol problem

Terry Wilson twilson at digium.com
Tue Nov 8 01:56:14 CST 2011

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jared Smith" <jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Yaroslav Panych <panych.y at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > You conflict yourself. Platform not supported, but patches accepted
> > and time to merge them into trunk/brunch are spent.
> No, I don't see a conflict in this at all. Thing of having Asterisk
> working on Cygwin as a "nice to have feature, but not necessary for
> Asterisk releases".

I'm not sure most of us even consider it as "nice to have." I don't think we care in the slightest if Asterisk on Cygwin works. We don't test it. We don't consider whether a patch we are writing will cause problems for it. It may work, it may not. If a community member sends in a patch that is simple and doesn't get in the way of code for platforms that we *do* care about, then we may commit it. If the patch added significant complexity to the codebase or looked like it might need someone to continually maintain it, I doubt we would accept it.

I don't want anyone to get any wrong idea that anyone at Digium cares about Cygwin support for Asterisk in any way shape or form. We don't. It's not even on the radar. It truly is a use-at-your-own risk kind of thing that would take significant vigilance on the part of the user to maintain a working codebase.

I use the term "we" a lot in the message, but it is mostly just my impression having worked at Digium for several years. The subject of Cygwin doesn't come up enough to even merit me knowing anything other than "it isn't supported."


More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list