Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:56:31 -0500 From: "Steve Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com> To: "Koop Mast" <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl>, "Steve Ames" <steve@energistic.com> Cc: net/asterisk maintainer <sobomax@freebsd.org>, Joerg Pulz <Joerg.Pulz@frm2.tum.de>, ports@freebsd.org, Sergey Matveychuk <sem@freebsd.org>, net/asterisk-oh323 maintainer <bamby@portaone.com>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: devel/pwlib and net/openh323 update coming Message-ID: <00f301c59926$3d139e30$aa00030a@officescape.net> References: <20050718175416.I72944@hades.admin.frm2> <20050719155248.apdm04x2wwgo8wg0@netchild.homeip.net> <20050719152818.GA64202@energistic.com> <1121788205.35721.7.camel@heater.rainbow-runner.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just checking to see if there any updates on this? I realize that there is now a ports-freeze so there isn't going to be a commit at all, but any feedback? Would it speed things up a bit if we baby step into things a little? Instead of going to 1.8.5/1.15.4 (or 1.9.1/1.17.2) what about if we do an upgrade to Janus-Patch4 (PWLib 1.6.6.3, OpenH323 1.13.5.2)? After that release came Pandora and there were a couple of API changes in both pwlib and openh323 that will cause some applications (net/asterisk-oh323 jumps to mind) not compile without some serious patching. However Janus4 is (I believe) API compatible with the versions currently in the tree and hence any negative impact on ports already in the tree should be minimal and easily fixed. Then we could put a newer version also into the ports tree (call it pwlib-current or some such) which would allow people who wanted to work with newer versions and produce patches for other packages to do so without affecting the installed userbase. The two versions should "CONFLICTS=" one another to avoid anyone shooting themselves in the foot. Thoughts? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Koop Mast" <kwm@rainbow-runner.nl> To: "Steve Ames" <steve@energistic.com> Cc: "Steve Ames" <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>; "Sergey Matveychuk" <sem@freebsd.org>; "net/asterisk maintainer" <sobomax@freebsd.org>; "net/asterisk-oh323 maintainer" <bamby@portaone.com>; <ports@freebsd.org>; "Joerg Pulz" <Joerg.Pulz@frm2.tum.de>; "Alexander Leidinger" <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:50 AM Subject: Re: devel/pwlib and net/openh323 update coming > On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 10:28 -0500, Steve Ames wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:52:48PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > Joerg Pulz <Joerg.Pulz@frm2.tum.de> wrote: > > > > > > >i spent a lot of time the past days/weeks to update the devel/pwlib > > > >and net/openh323 port to a more recent version. > > > > I haven't looked at the patches yet but I'm curious why you chose the > > versions you did? pwlib 1.9.0 is development branch (aka Atlas) as is > > openh323 1.17.1. (Although a new development release 1.9.1/1.17.2 was > > released today). I was shooting for getting the Stable (Mimas) release > > (currently 1.8.5/1.15.4 although another release is scheduled in about > > 2 weeks that has bug fixes in it from Atlas, some BSD specific). > > > > Did you have specific need of the Atlas branch? > > Ah so that are development versions, good to know I was also wondering > why this upgrade. > > > The PR I submitted only addresses pwlib and openh323. Your patch covers > > other ports which is great. I'd had a couple of patches (e.g. gatekeeper) > > to update to current version and utilize newer pwlib/openh323 but mainly > > was going to wait until pwlib/openh323 where in the tree. > > I will merge the two patches to gather and post it somewhere so people > can test it. This may take a day or so, because the 2 patches use a > different approach to things and I got some family time on the agenda. > > > > >You can get it at: > > > >ftp://ftp.frm2.tum.de/pub/jpulz/FreeBSD/pwlib_openh323-20050719.patch > > > >The md5 checksum is: > > > >MD5 (pwlib_openh323-20050719.patch) = 889c6cce0824c25d96aa935c0cdb99b6 > > > > I'll take a look at these today or tomorrow. Koop is the go to guy at > > the moment. I believe he has a pthread concern that he's trying to solve > > before doing this update. Perhaps your patches already address that? > > I would just like to say that with Steve his patches ldap_open check > fails but with Joerg his patches it succeeds. I'm ready for the loony > bin. > > > -steve > > Sorry for the bad english, its almost evening here but I'm still kind of > sleeping :). > > Koop > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00f301c59926$3d139e30$aa00030a>