[Asterisk-Dev] SRPMs for Fedora Extras

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:55:12AM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 13:56 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

> > spandsp.
> 
> There might be a problem with patents.  See
> <http://www.ocjtech.us/asterisk/spandsp/DueDiligence>.  That said, I do
> have a package for SpanDSP but it's not linked into my Asterisk packages
> (due to the patent issues).

FWIW, Debian has added spandsp. I'm not sure that the patents issue was
explicitly raised on Debian-Legal, but after reading that document I
actually don't feel that spandsp is more "dangerous" in that sense than
others.

> > The zaptel kernel parts want feeding to Linus too, assuming they're in a
> > good enough state for that -- I haven't looked at them at all yet.

Is there an effort to feed them to Linus? I'm not aware of any. And I
see them keep changing.

> 
> I agree that having kernel drivers in the stock kernels is a good thing.
> The main question is would Digium support that.

You'll probably have to get zaptel into Fedora Core itself to make it part \
of the kernel. Or build and maintain your own kernel package. The latter
is highly unwellcome because in the event on the next kernel bug the
user will have to choosebetween using an insecure kernel to one that
does not support Asterisk.

Debian doesn't build the zaptel modules. It just attempts to make it as
easy as possible (currently: it should be quite easy). For Rapid we
build those modules as an external package. http://tzafrir.org.il/rapid/
for the current version.

> 
> > If possible, we need to lose the dependency which chan_iax2 has on the
> > zap driver. If it's only used for timing, we should investigate the
> > POSIX timer functionality which is available with newer kernel/glibc.
> 
> Agreed.

I'd love to see that. But until that is sorted out, I'm not sure you can
give a package that has no Meetme support. 

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen     icq#16849755  +972-50-7952406
tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com  http://www.xorcom.com