[asterisk-dev] Asterisk 12 pjproject installation testing needed!

Matthew Jordan mjordan at digium.com
Sat Jul 13 18:40:41 CDT 2013

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Paul Belanger <paul.belanger at polybeacon.com
> wrote:

> On 13-07-13 03:17 PM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:30:53PM -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Matthew Jordan <mjordan at digium.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Because pjproject itself embeds a number of third party libraries,
>>>> getting
>>>> pjproject properly configured for a distribution/environment can be a
>>>> bit
>>>> tricky. We've taken the current findings and issues that people have run
>>>> into and put together a page on the Asterisk wiki here:
>>> Sigh...  I know that Asterisk has a long history of embedding
>>> third-party libraries, but for me to seriously consider packaging
>>> pjproject/pjsip for Fedora everything in the third-party directory has
>>> got to go.
>>> First off, there's MP3 related code in there.  Even though it doesn't
>>> directly include any MP3 encoding/decoding code it's just not a battle
>>> worth dealing with.  Another oddity is that the code only looks like
>>> it works on Windows by loading a LAME .dll file.  In any case, adding
>>> MP3 support to a project needs to be dealt with through a generic
>>> plugin architecture (much how like Asterisk deals with codec support
>>> now).
>> [snip a number of other similar issues]
>> Those are all issues that should be taken to pjproject's upstream. What
>> should be fixed is that the configure script should allow (allow?
>> default to?) using system copies for all of those libraries.
>> Speaking of upstream, any progress with getting the code from the Gitub
>> branch merged Upstream?
>>  I second this, I keep asking in passing if any work as been done on this
> front, but seem to get 'more important things to do' reply.
> I'm happy to see we did remove pjproject from asterisk, but I'm equally
> concerned we aren't going to get the patch set merge upstream in time and
> have created an unnecessary fork.
Well, you got that answer for two reasons:

(1) There really *were* more important things to be doing. It wouldn't have
done us any good to push changes up stream for pjproject and have Asterisk
not be able to use pjproject in a satisfactory manner.

(2) As I said in my original e-mail, we haven't yet tested the build system
sufficiently. Testing it on CentOS 6 and a couple dev boxes is not
adequate. As a person who also has to deal with receiving patches to an
open source project, I'd be a little miffed if I got a bunch of half-tested
changes to my project tossed at me. We owe the Asterisk project - and the
maintainers of pjproject - the respect to make sure that the changes are
correct and sufficient.

That being said, Yes - we've been in contact and they've informed us how to
send the patches to them for inclusion.

But before we do that, I really want to make sure that the modifications to
the build system are the best they can be.


Matthew Jordan
Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20130713/225e32ef/attachment.htm>

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list