[asterisk-dev] SHA1 and MD5 code?

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Tilghman Lesher <tilghman at meg.abyt.es> wrote:
>
> Did I miss something?  Last I checked, this was not a Fedora list.  What
> package maintainers do is routinely quite a bit different from what source
> maintainers do.  If people ask for support, the first thing that we ask of them
> is to either install the packages we built or build an unadulterated
> tarball from
> the Asterisk download server.

I used the Fedora Asterisk packages as an example only.  I haven't
looked at the Digium-built Asterisk packages in a while but I bet that
they pull in a similar number of packages to build as well.  If
someone is trying to build Asterisk from a tarball and is trying to
replicate their existing environment they'll need just as many
packages as well.

>> There's a lot of other functionality
>> in Asterisk that isn't built for the Fedora package yet because it
>> requires a library that isn't available in Fedora.
>
> That is rather odd.  Odd, because I haven't found a package yet that is not
> available on Ubuntu that Asterisk has support for.  And Fedora is supposed
> to be the testing platform for Red Hat.

Ubuntu/Debian have a lot more libraries packaged up, I think because
there's been a concerted effort in Debian to package up almost
everything.  Fedora has been catching up but doesn't match the breadth
of packages available in Debian (and probably never will).  For
example it'd be nice to get the Transnexus OSP Toolkit packaged up so
that I could build app_osplookup but it's never been a high priority
since I have no need for that at the moment.

>> I have no idea what the absolute minimum requirements are - it's not
>> really a use case I'm personally interested in.
>
> Those of us who have worked for resellers either in the past or in the present
> like to load as few modules as possible for production use.  The less code in
> the runtime, the less that can go wrong.

And once the Fedora Asterisk packages are done building the minimum
install requires 25 packages and that includes things like glibc that
are a part of the base OS.  I could make that even smaller if I really
wanted to (of course at a loss of features though).

>>> Now, something that could be done that
>>> would be welcome would be to detect whether the OpenSSL library was
>>> available; if it was, we would use it and remove the MD5/SHA1 code from the
>>> link step.  Debian contributed a patch that does this similarly with the libgsm
>>> code.
>>
>> Schemes like this always strike me as a hack, plus you increase the
>> amount of testing that you need to do because certain tests need to be
>> run twice, once with OpenSSL linked in and once without.
>
> Well, that's also true of plenty of other modules.  App_voicemail is a prime
> example, as it needs to be compiled once with file support, once with ODBC
> support, and once with IMAP support.

Oh yeah, there's another wart in the build system I'd like to get rid
of some day.

>> BTW, it'd be nice to eliminate libedit from main/editline as well.
>
> If you can find a library with equivalent functionality that is
> compatible with the
> licensing scheme of Asterisk, we're all ears.  Note that libreadline
> is GPL and is
> thus incompatible with the dual licensing of Asterisk.

BSD licensed:

http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/

The Fedora packages already patch out main/editline and use this
library.  I believe that Bash on Fedora (among other things) uses this
library so you'll get a small memory savings by using this library.

-- 
Jeff Ollie