[asterisk-dev] Proposal to bring pjproject back into the fold

George Joseph george.joseph at fairview5.com
Tue Jan 19 11:18:57 CST 2016

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Jared Smith <jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net>

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:30 AM, George Joseph <
> george.joseph at fairview5.com> wrote:
>> ​I understand the packaging issue and I'd like to hear from packagers
>> like Jared Smith.
> Not sure what to say here -- bundling pjproject with Asterisk causes me a
> world of hurt from a packaging standpoint.  Having them as separate
> projects makes my job as a packager much much easier.


>> We could simply require a specific version of Asterisk to be statically
>> linked to a specific version of pjproject and let the packaging process
>> insure it's there.  For rpms, a BuildRequires would do that.  There's be no
>> runtime dependency after that.
> And a "Requires:" would force that particular version to be present to
> install the package -- but you're right -- it doesn't enforce it at *run
> time*.

We already have a --with-pjproject=PATH option in ./configure which I'd
default to the one in asterisk/third_party but you could choose any path.
The only real difference is that we're always statically linking rather
than dynamically linking.  If you don't change the path, the Asterisk build
would (smartly) download and build the approved version.

So for RH packages, you already have a separate sub-package for pjsip.
You'd add a BuildRequires: pjproject-devel = 2.4.5 (or whatever the
Asterisk-approved version is) and set the --with-pjproject path to the
system path and build as normal.   No third_party stuff gets downloaded or

Either way, we've locked Asterisk to a specific, approved version.

> If there are things that I can do from a packaging standpoint to make
> things easier (either on the pjproject side or the Asterisk side) of the
> Fedora/RHEL/CentOS packages, please don't hesitate to reach out to me.
> I've already made one change last week (that George asked me to make), and
> I'd be happy to make more.  I just don't play with Asterisk and pjproject
> every day like I once could, so I often miss out on the little nuances
> these days :-/
> --
> Jared Smith
> ​Yep, thanks for that!​

Even if we don't change anything, the one thing you might have to check is
the possible dependence ​between res_rtp_asterisk and pjproject.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20160119/8f12c975/attachment.html>

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list