[asterisk-dev] SIP Stack - Update

[Paul Belanger]

On 12-12-19 09:56 AM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 01:59 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
>> On 12-12-10 08:56 PM, Matthew Jordan wrote:
>> Please don't solely take on the responsibility to create packages for
>> pjproject. Approach upstream Debian and Fedora and provide intensives
>> for help.
>
> We aren't taking on the responsibility to create packages for Debian or
> Fedora. As I stated in the original e-mail, the only packages we will be
> producing are for CentOS.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "provide incentives (sp)" for help. As far
> as approaching upstream package maintainers, its fairly clear that a
> number of package maintainers have already been involved in this thread.
> Its a little premature to ask someone to make packages before a product
> has a build system that allows for this; once that's in place we can
> certainly ask if someone would be interested in producing said packages.
>
Right, drop Debian then. The point I'm trying to make is if you do 
contribute and maintain pjproject to Fedora (EPEL[1] actually) the 
benefit to the RPM community will be huge.  Like you say, there is at 
least 3 Fedora packages active on this list, I cannot speak for them, 
but I'm sure everybody would be happy to work from a common packaging 
source.

>> Right now, we don't even do a good job even providing the latest
>> versions of asterisk packages any more. And we already have a list of
>> people complaining about the lack up updates.  I don't believe this is
>> intentional, but a lack of resources.
>
> For what distros? We provide packages for CentOS - and while the last
> updates took a bit to get out, they are updated.
>
Right, but why take the unnecessary burden and solo responsibility to 
get the latest version of pjproject out. IMO, distro's usually do a fine 
job at packaging the latest.

As for versions, it looks like we are still only doing CentOS 5 
packages, what about CentOS 6?

> You are correct that we no longer are attempting to maintain packages
> for Ubuntu, for a variety of reasons. If someone would like to pick that
> up, that'd be fantastic.
>
>> Additionally, because of the way the Digium build infrastructure is
>> setup allow non-digium people access to it is not a trivial process.
>
> Can you clarify what you need access to in order to build packages that
> you currently don't have access to?
>
Unless nighthawk has changed, it was setup on the internal network.  So, 
anybody who wants to submit packaging to the build server would need VPN 
access.  This might have changed recently with your network rework a few 
months ago.

>> Or, please have the local resource apply and become a package maintainer
>> for Fedora or Debian and use their existing infrastructure.  If Digium
>> wishes to maintain a local repo, back-porting from upstream is straight
>> forward.
>>
>
> I don't see that happening. We do have sufficient resources to maintain
> CentOS packages ourselves, but beyond that, we do not have the resources
> to make packages for other distros.
>
Again, maintain them yourself does nothing for the RPM community.  You 
should be working together, contributing patches. I fear if you take 
sole responsibility for your own version of pjproject package, it just 
adds yet another thing on your plate to handle and reported issue just 
linger.

Look at ANOW-149[2] for example, ~18months old, zero activity and even 
has people volunteering to help.

Hell, if I have to learn how to create RPM spec files and mock, I'll be 
the first to step up and offer my time to help get this going.

Don't hate me :)

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL
[2] https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ANOW-149
-- 
Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
Jabber: paul.belanger at polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode)
Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: 
https://twitter.com/pabelanger