[asterisk-users] Zaptel / Asterisk on Solaris

[Bruce McAlister]

Hi RR,

Replies inline below

From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of RR
Sent: 04 December 2010 01:17
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Zaptel / Asterisk on Solaris


On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM, RR <ranjtech at gmail.com<mailto:ranjtech at gmail.com>> wrote:

Zaptel package isn't installing though ...crashes midway complaining that:

"Operating environment requirement not met.
This package requires Solaris 7 or better.
checkinstall script suspends"

huh? I'm running 5.11, which according to some rigorous mathematical calculations, I concluded IS better than v5.7. Unfortunately, I've been away from the development world so long that I can't remember where to go about hacking a "package" and extract the scripts etc to change the logic or fix whatever is causing it to believe that my OS isn't meeting the min. req.

Lastly, w.r.t to running it within a VM, yes, I do understand the timing problems etc, but this exercise is just to document how to compile Asterisk/Zaptel under Solaris 10/11 so when I do get a real Solaris machine, I have already sorted out all the issues with installing/compiling etc

Thanks
\R

As of this writing, I have recreated my Solaris VM with the latest Solaris 10 U9 version and have managed to install and load the zaptel driver. This is from the SolarisVoIP but it must be a really old (haven't checked the version yet). Now, trying to go crazy here and compile the stock Asterisk 1.6.2.14 with it.

--
I suspected it would have been changes/differences between OpenSolaris and Solaris. The packages at SolarisVoIP were built on the standard Solaris OS, as you found out :) Try to compile version 1.6.2.15-rc1 as I had issues with a "timersub" routine on 1.6.2.14 that appears to have been fixed in 1.6.2.15-rc1
--



Question for the Digium dev team (if they bother reading emails from lowlifes like me): Are their special optimizations/options/conditions/checks ALREADY in place within the makefile/configure files that detect Solaris and if we want to go really crazy then detect 64-bit Solaris? Do I just fix my library paths with the LDFLAGS and just run configure or should I be doing something more, modifying makefile, makefile.rules, makefile.opts or the configure script itself??

--
The makefile already has some options specific to Solaris, however, I usually edit the makefile to include /usr/sfw which is where the standard ssl etc libraries are located on Solaris. The default makefile looks for them in /usr/local. If you also want to keep your application in the /opt tree then you will need to modify the installation path as well. I seem to recall an issue with ncurses or tr or something along those lines which made me include /usr/xpg4/bin in the beginning of my PATH so that it found the proper tool in one of the scripts. Other than that it should build cleanly on Solaris. With regards the 64-bit build, I've not tried it yet, but bear in mind that the 64-bit libraries for the likes of ogg/vorbis are not there by default in Solaris, most of the other standard asterisk library requirements are, you should, in theory only have to export <libdir>/64 to link in the 64 bit libraries. I've not tried to build a 664-bit version yet so I'm shooting in the dark here.
--

Wonder why no one responds to emails related to Solaris on Asterisk...even a search throughout the forum on the Digium website, hardly anything comes up regarding Solaris :(

--
I think historically the dev's have not had access to a standard Solaris box for dev/testing, it has mainly been on OpenSolaris, which as you have found out, is, in some cases, different, in the details, to the standard Solaris operating system. However, in saying that, they do have access to Solaris build environments now, and are making plans to include it in the development cycle of the application. Give it time man, and try to help the other guys/gals from your own experience, and we should eventually get there in the end :)
--

Can the developers PLEASE help?

Thanks so much in advance,
\RR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20101204/37c62d14/attachment.htm