Faidon Liambotis | 1 Jun 06:12 2007
Picon

Re: asterisk +dapper

Kilian Krause wrote:
> the new sources have just been added to pkg-voip SVN. The building
> should commence any minute now. Stay tuned to
> http://status.buildserver.net/packages/status.php?packages=asterisk1.2%20zaptel1.2%20libpri1.2&subdist=pkg-voip
Since Asterisk and Zaptel are not shared libraries, I think asterisk-1.2 
and zaptel-1.2 is more appropriate.

libpri OTOH is a library, but the package suffix should reflect the SONAME.
The SONAME is 1, so either the package rename (from libpri1) was 
incorrent or the SONAME should have changed (e.g. to 1.2) because of ABI 
  incompatibilities.
[this has nothing to do with your packaging attempt]

This is a serious bug. We released with it but it would be best to fix 
it even at this point.
IOW, libpri 1.4 should have a different SONAME and hence a different 
package name if Asterisk 1.2 is not capable of working with it.

> and watch for errors. As soon as it has been built there, i'll push it
> to the public archive (in case it'll not auto-migrate by britney).
That's what "experimental" is for.

Regards,
Faidon
Kilian Krause | 1 Jun 09:25 2007
Picon

Re: asterisk +dapper

Faidon,

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:12:54AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Kilian Krause wrote:
> > the new sources have just been added to pkg-voip SVN. The building
> > should commence any minute now. Stay tuned to
> > http://status.buildserver.net/packages/status.php?packages=asterisk1.2%20zaptel1.2%20libpri1.2&subdist=pkg-voip
> Since Asterisk and Zaptel are not shared libraries, I think asterisk-1.2 
> and zaptel-1.2 is more appropriate.

python2.3 is also not a shared lib. Well, zaptel has library components
(like libtonezone), so it even is a library. Anyway, I think that naming
should not be an issue.

> libpri OTOH is a library, but the package suffix should reflect the SONAME.
> The SONAME is 1, so either the package rename (from libpri1) was 
> incorrent or the SONAME should have changed (e.g. to 1.2) because of ABI 
>   incompatibilities.
> [this has nothing to do with your packaging attempt]

Yes, that's what I also find pretty bewildering. And right now I'm not
entirely sure what the correct fix is for both 1.4 and 1.2 series.

> This is a serious bug. We released with it but it would be best to fix 
> it even at this point.
> IOW, libpri 1.4 should have a different SONAME and hence a different 
> package name if Asterisk 1.2 is not capable of working with it.

Yes. Tzafrir, can you verify what the combination is that actually works
and how we sort this issue out best? I mean, can we even go with
(Continue reading)

Tzafrir Cohen | 1 Jun 12:24 2007

Re: asterisk +dapper

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:25:14AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:

> Yes. Tzafrir, can you verify what the combination is that actually works
> and how we sort this issue out best? I mean, can we even go with
> libpri1.4 for asterisk 1.2 instead of putting another libpri1.2 in?

Upstream insterface aside, libpri 1.0 was fully bbristuffed, 1.2 had
anon-bristuffed version and a bristuffed version and 1.4 has no
bristuffed version. So it cannot be used for building bristuffed
asterisk 1.2.

--

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen       
icq#16849755                    jabber:tzafrir <at> jabber.org
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen <at> xorcom.com       
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest <at> local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
Sheldon Hearn | 1 Jun 15:51 2007
Picon

buildserver's etch-experimental Packages empty


Hi folks,

Where can I go to find out why the binary-i386 and source Packages files 
are empty for pkg-voip.buildserver.net's etch-experimental dist?

Thanks,
Sheldon.
--

-- 
Sheldon Hearn
IT Director
Clue Technologies (PTY) Ltd

Web:		http://www.clue.co.za/
Mail:		sheldonh <at> clue.co.za
Office:		+27-21-913-8840
Mobile:		+27-83-564-3276
Timezone:	SAST (+0200)
_______________________________________________
Pkg-voip-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-voip-maintainers <at> lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-voip-maintainers
Kilian Krause | 1 Jun 16:58 2007
Picon

Re: buildserver's etch-experimental Packages empty

Sheldon,

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:51:23PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Where can I go to find out why the binary-i386 and source Packages files 
> are empty for pkg-voip.buildserver.net's etch-experimental dist?

that's ok as is. Right now they're not built, i.e. not even fully set
up. There is some sources supposed to be there for the internal build
archive, yet IIRC it was never added to any of the buildds. Moreover
there are currently no packages that are targetted at experimental and
would fall into this dist - asterisk, zaptel and libpri are all 1.4 in
unstable now. So what would you expect to find there?

--

-- 
Best regards,
Kilian
_______________________________________________
Pkg-voip-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-voip-maintainers <at> lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-voip-maintainers
Sheldon Hearn | 1 Jun 19:10 2007
Picon

Re: buildserver's etch-experimental Packages empty

On Friday 01 June 2007 16:58, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Moreover
> there are currently no packages that are targetted at experimental
> and would fall into this dist - asterisk, zaptel and libpri are all
> 1.4 in unstable now. So what would you expect to find there?

Oh.  I saw etch-experimental, noticed that sources contains 1.4-branch 
source packages for etch, and assumed there should be binary-i386 
packages of same.  I then assumed there must be some build problem with 
them, couldn't find one, and thought if I knew where to look, I might 
be able to help.

Sorry for the time waster.

Ciao,
Sheldon.
--

-- 
Sheldon Hearn
IT Director
Clue Technologies (PTY) Ltd

Web:		http://www.clue.co.za/
Mail:		sheldonh <at> clue.co.za
Office:		+27-21-913-8840
Mobile:		+27-83-564-3276
Timezone:	SAST (+0200)
_______________________________________________
Pkg-voip-maintainers mailing list
(Continue reading)

Debian testing watch | 2 Jun 00:40 2007
Picon

srtp 1.4.2.dfsg-4 MIGRATED to testing

FYI: The status of the srtp source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

  Previous version: (not in testing)
  Current version:  1.4.2.dfsg-4

--

-- 
This email is automatically generated; henning <at> makholm.net is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.
Kilian Krause | 2 Jun 01:51 2007
Picon

Re: buildserver's etch-experimental Packages empty

Sheldon,

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:10:07PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Friday 01 June 2007 16:58, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > Moreover
> > there are currently no packages that are targetted at experimental
> > and would fall into this dist - asterisk, zaptel and libpri are all
> > 1.4 in unstable now. So what would you expect to find there?
> 
> Oh.  I saw etch-experimental, noticed that sources contains 1.4-branch 
> source packages for etch, and assumed there should be binary-i386 
> packages of same.  I then assumed there must be some build problem with 
> them, couldn't find one, and thought if I knew where to look, I might 
> be able to help.

great to have this kind of support. As said the sources are checked out
and yet are older than the ones in SID. It may be reused later on with
asterisk 1.6 or so. It's just "for now" that this is no longer in use as
Etch is out the stable door.

The place to watch out for logs in any kind is always
http://status.buildserver.net/. You may want to check
http://archive.buildserver.net/excuses/ if you think a package has built
ok, but won't show up in the public archive. The britney output is a bit
hard to read, but at least it may give some idea where to start
searching.

> Sorry for the time waster.

No need to be sorry. It's great to receive this kind of help. I'll try
(Continue reading)

Mark Purcell | 2 Jun 10:46 2007
Picon

Bug#425985: extended description doesn't describe package

Filipus,

Your report seems to contain two statements of fact, rather than a bug report.

1. speex-doc package description doesn't say it contains binaries/ libraries.
2. short description for speex, libspeex1 and libspeex-dev are the same.

Yes I agree.  But what would you like fixed?

Do you really not know what the speex-doc package provides:

Package: speex-doc
Description: Documentation for speex
 Unlike other codecs like MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, Speex is specially
 designed for compressing voice at low bit-rates for applications
 such as voice over IP (VoIP). In some sense, it is meant to be
 complementary to the Ogg Vorbis codec.

Mark

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Contrary to other speex packages, speex-doc doesn't contain something
> like
>
> This package contains the encoder and decoder command-line applications.
>
> in its description. It only contains the common paragraph.
>
> Note that other speex packages have identical short descriptions.

(Continue reading)

Mark Purcell | 2 Jun 10:46 2007
Picon

Bug#425985: extended description doesn't describe package

Filipus,

Your report seems to contain two statements of fact, rather than a bug report.

1. speex-doc package description doesn't say it contains binaries/ libraries.
2. short description for speex, libspeex1 and libspeex-dev are the same.

Yes I agree.  But what would you like fixed?

Do you really not know what the speex-doc package provides:

Package: speex-doc
Description: Documentation for speex
 Unlike other codecs like MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, Speex is specially
 designed for compressing voice at low bit-rates for applications
 such as voice over IP (VoIP). In some sense, it is meant to be
 complementary to the Ogg Vorbis codec.

Mark

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Contrary to other speex packages, speex-doc doesn't contain something
> like
>
> This package contains the encoder and decoder command-line applications.
>
> in its description. It only contains the common paragraph.
>
> Note that other speex packages have identical short descriptions.

(Continue reading)


Gmane