[asterisk-users] Which best practices to build and deploy Asterisk on different hardware ?

[Olivier]

2008/5/19 Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>:

> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:17:56PM +0200, Olivier wrote:
> > 2008/5/19 Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:29:54PM +0200, Olivier wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Today I'm building Asterisk using steps like this :
> > > >
> > >
> http://mikeoverip.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/asterisk-compilation-and-installation-on-debian-etch/
> > > >
> > > > As you can see, the first requirement is to download various
> dependencies
> > > > such as gcc, g++.
> > > >
> > > > As I'm trying to centralize everything (configuration files, source
> codes
> > > in
> > > > an SVN repository), I'm wondering if there is a smarter way to build
> > > > Asterisk.
> > >
> > > For configuration this is indeed very useful. For source: a bit less.
> > >
> > > Do you keep the whole Asterisk source tree in a subversion?
> >
> > not at the moment but I'm wondering if we should ...
> >
> > What do you
> > > do when a new version comes along? People tend to keep just patches and
> > > build instructions in the subversion.
> > >
> > > You can check the astlinux SVN repository for a working build system.
> > >
> > > We maintain the Debian Asterisk-related packages (and some others) in a
> > > subversion repository:
> > >
> > >  http://pkg-voip.alioth.debian.org/
> > >
> > > As you can see, most of the packages there have just a debian/
> > > subdirectory, where they keep the administrative files needed for
> > > packaging. Many of them also have the subdirectory debian/patches/
> where
> > > patches to the source package are maintained.
> > >
> > > But some people keep saying that a a version control system that has
> > > better support for merging should allow you to store the source inside
> > > it and just merge new upstream versions (or rather: consider your
> > > changes as feature branches). This sounds cool, but may be tricky to
> > > implement.
> >
> > I agree :
> > if we edit files somewhere, upload changes in repository and then
> download
> > them in target system, things are manageable
> > but it's easier to work directly on target system when tracking a bug or
> > tweaking some configuration. Then things become more difficult to handle
>
> Hmm... give a second thought to a distributed version control system?
>
> (All the main contenders also happen to have much better merge support
> than subversion)


Do you mean git or equivalent ?
The fact is what kept us from using svn itself to save local modifications
is that merge support was not very comfortable.

I think I should give a try ...

>
> --
>                Tzafrir Cohen
> icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com<jabber%3Atzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>
> +972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
> http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20080520/3f35943e/attachment.htm