<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Thank you for pointing this out. I have submitted a patch for
Asterisk 13, 15 and master so in future versions of Asterisk
(13.19.0+ and 15.2.0+) you will not need to run ./bootstrap.sh to
build/install the open source Opus codec.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/01/2017 04:27 PM, Jean-Denis
Girard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d2e445f3-e5ea-29e0-9690-54cfe751756a@sysnux.pf">
<pre wrap="">Hi list,
Le 01/11/2017 à 09:08, Matt Fredrickson a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hey Corey,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Corey Farrell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:git@cfware.com"><git@cfware.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello all,
autoconf is required to run ./bootstrap.sh after changing configure.ac or
*.m4 in any folder of the Asterisk source tree (including menuselect and
third-party folders). Currently we require 2.60, I'm working on a patch
that will require 2.64. Note autoconf is not required to run './configure',
it is only needed to run ./bootstrap.sh.
Does anyone work on these files from a distribution which cannot install
autoconf-2.69? Although the changes I'm working on only require autoconf
2.64 I see no reason to hold back at this point. Version 2.69 is from 2012
and is the latest version. As far as I know CentOS 6 is the only major
currently supported distribution which has autoconf < 2.64, all others
provide 2.69. Requiring 2.69 would be one less thing to worry about when
working on configure scripts, especially since I don't have access to test
any lower version.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We discussed this on IRC a bit yesterday, but to echo my response - I
myself work on a distribution that has at least version 2.69 of
autoconf so it shouldn't be a big deal. I believe that re-running
bootstrap.sh should be so infrequent (only when we need to add things
to detect new libraries or do system related checks) that I don't have
a huge problem with bumping up the required version on it. Since
generation of the configure script could be done on a more modern
system as a workaround I think it shouldn't be a big deal.
Anybody have opposing thoughts?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm using the open source Opus codec from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/traud/asterisk-opus">https://github.com/traud/asterisk-opus</a>: it requires running
bootstrap.sh, so that would be a problem for my customers on CentOS-6.
Everything that breaks CentOS-6 seems bad to me.
Thanks,
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>