I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Jeff
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
Jeff
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
If possible, I think this is the best route. Won't hurt to try it.
-Mike
On 21.12.2007 05:38, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
If possible, I think this is the best route. Won't hurt to try it.
+1 -- but that could take a while. If it takes to long or if it looks like it won't happen then I'd we should consider to ship a newer speex.
But we should never ever disturb the RH bits, thus the speex libs should not be in the default dynamic linker path, as then other packagers linked against speex might use it (or has it a differnt .so name?) .
Cu knurd
On 12/21/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 21.12.2007 05:38, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
If possible, I think this is the best route. Won't hurt to try it.
+1 -- but that could take a while. If it takes to long or if it looks like it won't happen then I'd we should consider to ship a newer speex.
But we should never ever disturb the RH bits, thus the speex libs should not be in the default dynamic linker path, as then other packagers linked against speex might use it (or has it a differnt .so name?) .
Yeah, I haven't looked at the code yet, but I was hoping that it would be relatively easy to make a speex12 package that would be parallel installable with the RHEL speex package and you would need to -lspeex12 instead of -lspeex.
Jeff
On 21.12.2007 15:45, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On 12/21/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 21.12.2007 05:38, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
If possible, I think this is the best route. Won't hurt to try it.
+1 -- but that could take a while. If it takes to long or if it looks like it won't happen then I'd we should consider to ship a newer speex. But we should never ever disturb the RH bits, thus the speex libs should not be in the default dynamic linker path, as then other packagers linked against speex might use it (or has it a differnt .so name?) .
Yeah, I haven't looked at the code yet, but I was hoping that it would be relatively easy to make a speex12 package that would be parallel installable with the RHEL speex package and you would need to -lspeex12 instead of -lspeex.
k; the biggest problem with this scheme is: what if other packages want to use a similar tricks when they need a new gtk, qt, <insert other libs>. That could soon become a maintenance pita and a kind of second library layer ontop of (or in parallel) the libs from RHEL, which afaics nobody wants. Thus we might need to limit this and put some hurdles in the way; something like "such packages must be approved by the EPEL SIG in a meeting" or something like that.
Cu knurd
On 12/21/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
k; the biggest problem with this scheme is: what if other packages want to use a similar tricks when they need a new gtk, qt, <insert other libs>. That could soon become a maintenance pita and a kind of second library layer ontop of (or in parallel) the libs from RHEL, which afaics nobody wants. Thus we might need to limit this and put some hurdles in the way; something like "such packages must be approved by the EPEL SIG in a meeting" or something like that.
Yeah, I don't really want to get into maintaining a copy of speex - I think that I'll poke the RHEL speex maintainer and see if we can't work something out. If that doesn't work we'll have to wait for RHEL6 to branch Asterisk.
Jeff
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 21.12.2007 15:45, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On 12/21/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 21.12.2007 05:38, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:19 PM, Jeffrey Ollie jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
I've had a number of requests to branch the Asterisk packages that are now (finally) in F-7+ for EL-4 and EL-5. Most of the dependencies have been (or soon will be) taken care of. The one problematic package is speex. The Asterisk package requires speex version 1.2 which is available in Fedora 7 and onwards. However, speex in RHEL5 is at version 1.0.5. Would it be acceptable to create a speex12 package in EPEL so that Asterisk can be branched? The speex12 package would be for EL-4 and EL-5 only since RHEL6 will presumably provide speex 1.2 itself.
Can a bug be filed with RHEL and have them bump/backport the required features for Speex in a future update?
If possible, I think this is the best route. Won't hurt to try it.
+1 -- but that could take a while. If it takes to long or if it looks like it won't happen then I'd we should consider to ship a newer speex. But we should never ever disturb the RH bits, thus the speex libs should not be in the default dynamic linker path, as then other packagers linked against speex might use it (or has it a differnt .so name?) .
Yeah, I haven't looked at the code yet, but I was hoping that it would be relatively easy to make a speex12 package that would be parallel installable with the RHEL speex package and you would need to -lspeex12 instead of -lspeex.
k; the biggest problem with this scheme is: what if other packages want to use a similar tricks when they need a new gtk, qt, <insert other libs>. That could soon become a maintenance pita and a kind of second library layer ontop of (or in parallel) the libs from RHEL, which afaics nobody wants. Thus we might need to limit this and put some hurdles in the way; something like "such packages must be approved by the EPEL SIG in a meeting" or something like that.
the initial idea for this came from sqlite which has had multiple versions in at one time in the past. Whether or not thats a good thing or not I don't know :)
-Mike
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org