Mailing List Archive: atrpms: devel

Revamped asterisk packages

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 21, 2009, 2:36 AM

Post #1 of 23 (4304 views)
Permalink

Revamped asterisk packages

Hi,

there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
have been uploaded, please give them a shot.

Here is a preliminary announcement:

* There is asterisk 1.6, 1.4 and 1.2 support for up RHEL5/4 and
F11/F10 in the repo. All packages are fresh with recent CVE fixes as
well as the moh provider change. There are also some more
dependencies added enabling some functionality that wasn't available
until now.

* Asterisk 1.6 is currently in the testing repo. See below for the
reasons.

* Asterisk 1.2.x and asterisk 1.4.x have been renamed to asterisk12
and asterisk14 respectively, similar for supporting packages. There
are automatic upgrade paths to make asterisk 1.4 packages upgrade to
asterisk14. Asterisk 1.6 packages will not be affected that way.

This allows users to pick asterisk12, asterisk14 or asterisk 1.6 to
pick their line and stay with it w/o fear of updates upgrading their
asterisk across major versions (thanks to Tim for the idea).

The reason for asterisk 1.6 remaining in testing for a short while
is to have automated upgrades update asterisk-1.4.x to
asterisk14-1.4.x before moving asterisk-1.6.x to stable.

* There is an updated agx-ast-addons package built against asterisk
1.4 with dahdi support.

* Patched in support for fax in asterisk 1.4 has been removed in favour
of agx-ast-addons.

* There will also be an asterisk160 package set similar to asterisk12
and asterisk14 supporting asterisk 1.6.0.x in contrast to 1.6.1.x

--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 21, 2009, 2:36 AM

Post #2 of 23 (4222 views)
Permalink

Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

drees76 at gmail

Aug 21, 2009, 11:44 AM

Post #3 of 23 (4227 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> have been uploaded, please give them a shot.

Thanks Axel - we'll give the new packages a shot shortly on our CentOS
5 asterisk box.

-Dave

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

drees76 at gmail

Aug 21, 2009, 1:00 PM

Post #4 of 23 (4225 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> have been uploaded, please give them a shot.

All the asterisk-extra-sounds packages are giving that cpio directory
rename error again...

# rpm -Uvh asterisk-extra-sounds-en-alaw-1.4.9-56.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:asterisk-extra-sounds-e########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/share/asterisk/sounds/ha: cpio: rename failed - Is a directory

This is on CentOS 5 i386.

-Dave

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

drees76 at gmail

Aug 21, 2009, 1:17 PM

Post #5 of 23 (4234 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> have been uploaded, please give them a shot.

Also something weird going on with the libtonezone1 packages. For
some reason, libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386.rpm thinks it's newer
than libtonezone1-2.2.0-61.el5.i386.rpm.

I have libtonezone1-2.2.0-61.el5.i386 installed, but yum lists
libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386 as an update. The update fails
because I have dahdi installed which requires the 2.2.0 version.

If I try to update libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386, I would expect
to get a "package is older than the installed package" message, but
instead I get the a failed dependencies message (which is expected, I
guess).

-Dave

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 22, 2009, 1:44 AM

Post #6 of 23 (4225 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:00:01PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> > there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> > have been uploaded, please give them a shot.
>
> All the asterisk-extra-sounds packages are giving that cpio directory
> rename error again...

What's the state before the install? Are there symlinks in the game?
Can you please uninstall the old packages and make sure eveything is
clean and try to reinstall?

> # rpm -Uvh asterisk-extra-sounds-en-alaw-1.4.9-56.noarch.rpm
> Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
> 1:asterisk-extra-sounds-e########################################### [100%]
> error: unpacking of archive failed on file
> /usr/share/asterisk/sounds/ha: cpio: rename failed - Is a directory
>
> This is on CentOS 5 i386.

--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 22, 2009, 1:45 AM

Post #7 of 23 (4224 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:17:44PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> > there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> > have been uploaded, please give them a shot.
>
> Also something weird going on with the libtonezone1 packages. For
> some reason, libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386.rpm thinks it's newer
> than libtonezone1-2.2.0-61.el5.i386.rpm.
>
> I have libtonezone1-2.2.0-61.el5.i386 installed, but yum lists
> libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386 as an update. The update fails
> because I have dahdi installed which requires the 2.2.0 version.
>
> If I try to update libtonezone1-1.4.12.1-56.el5.i386, I would expect
> to get a "package is older than the installed package" message, but
> instead I get the a failed dependencies message (which is expected, I
> guess).

I think this is because I dropped the epoch from zaptel to dahldi
thinking that the name change doesn't need to carry over the evr, but
I was wrong, thanks for catching this!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

tim.verhoeven.be at gmail

Aug 24, 2009, 1:05 PM

Post #8 of 23 (4213 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>
> there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> have been uploaded, please give them a shot.
>
> Here is a preliminary announcement:
>
> * There is asterisk 1.6, 1.4 and 1.2 support for up RHEL5/4 and
> F11/F10 in the repo. All packages are fresh with recent CVE fixes as
> well as the moh provider change. There are also some more
> dependencies added enabling some functionality that wasn't available
> until now.
>
> * Asterisk 1.6 is currently in the testing repo. See below for the
> reasons.
>
> * Asterisk 1.2.x and asterisk 1.4.x have been renamed to asterisk12
> and asterisk14 respectively, similar for supporting packages. There
> are automatic upgrade paths to make asterisk 1.4 packages upgrade to
> asterisk14. Asterisk 1.6 packages will not be affected that way.
>
> This allows users to pick asterisk12, asterisk14 or asterisk 1.6 to
> pick their line and stay with it w/o fear of updates upgrading their
> asterisk across major versions (thanks to Tim for the idea).
>
> The reason for asterisk 1.6 remaining in testing for a short while
> is to have automated upgrades update asterisk-1.4.x to
> asterisk14-1.4.x before moving asterisk-1.6.x to stable.
>
> * There is an updated agx-ast-addons package built against asterisk
> 1.4 with dahdi support.
>
> * Patched in support for fax in asterisk 1.4 has been removed in favour
> of agx-ast-addons.
>
> * There will also be an asterisk160 package set similar to asterisk12
> and asterisk14 supporting asterisk 1.6.0.x in contrast to 1.6.1.x
>

I've just setup a new Asterisk server at work, and in the process was
able rename my Asterisk 1.6.0 package to asterisk160 and use the
/usr/share/asterisk directory. I also needed to make various fixes to
other packages. There are the new packages available on
http://people.atrpms.net/~tverhoeven/ :

misdn-1.1.9.2-6.el5.src.rpm
fxload-2008_10_13-0.el5.src.rpm (is a brand new package, dahdi-tools
requires it)
asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm
dahdi-tools-2.2.0-62.el5.src.rpm

I will look at your 1.6.1 package soon and compare it to what I did in 1.6.0.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

drees76 at gmail

Aug 24, 2009, 2:13 PM

Post #9 of 23 (4204 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:00:01PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>> > there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
>> > have been uploaded, please give them a shot.
>>
>> All the asterisk-extra-sounds packages are giving that cpio directory
>> rename error again...
>
> What's the state before the install? Are there symlinks in the game?
> Can you please uninstall the old packages and make sure eveything is
> clean and try to reinstall?

The state was clean before the install - the previous extra-sounds
packages (1.4.9-55) installed fine.

>> # rpm -Uvh asterisk-extra-sounds-en-alaw-1.4.9-56.noarch.rpm
>> Preparing... � � � � � � � �########################################### [100%]
>> � �1:asterisk-extra-sounds-e########################################### [100%]
>> error: unpacking of archive failed on file
>> /usr/share/asterisk/sounds/ha: cpio: rename failed - Is a directory
>>
>> This is on CentOS 5 i386.

Just tried again with the latest -57 packages. Same error.

This appears to be identical to the core-sounds package problems I
reported earlier, except now affect the extra-sounds packages.

http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/2009-August/010779.html

-Dave

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 24, 2009, 11:54 PM

Post #10 of 23 (4204 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> >> All the asterisk-extra-sounds packages are giving that cpio directory
> >> rename error again...
> >
> > What's the state before the install? Are there symlinks in the game?
> > Can you please uninstall the old packages and make sure eveything is
> > clean and try to reinstall?

> This appears to be identical to the core-sounds package problems I
> reported earlier, except now affect the extra-sounds packages.

OK, I hadn't moved over the fix to the extras packages, -58 will have
this fixed.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 25, 2009, 1:31 AM

Post #11 of 23 (4206 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Hi Tim,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:05:17PM +0200, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> >
> > there are a lot of changes in the asterisk & support packages that
> > have been uploaded, please give them a shot.
> >

> > * There will also be an asterisk160 package set similar to asterisk12
> > �and asterisk14 supporting asterisk 1.6.0.x in contrast to 1.6.1.x

> I've just setup a new Asterisk server at work, and in the process was
> able rename my Asterisk 1.6.0 package to asterisk160 and use the
> /usr/share/asterisk directory. I also needed to make various fixes to
> other packages. There are the new packages available on
> http://people.atrpms.net/~tverhoeven/ :
>
> misdn-1.1.9.2-6.el5.src.rpm
> fxload-2008_10_13-0.el5.src.rpm (is a brand new package, dahdi-tools
> requires it)
> asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm
> dahdi-tools-2.2.0-62.el5.src.rpm
>
> I will look at your 1.6.1 package soon and compare it to what I did in 1.6.0.

Thanks! There was already an asterisk160 package since the 22nd
derived from the asterisk package with the changes
asterisk->asterisk14 adapted to asterisk160.

I tried to compare with asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm, but the
differences are too big (I think you started off the Fedora imported
package?). Could you check whether the asterisk160 package at ATrpms
has all you need? If not, then I'd rather have all three packages
(asterisk, asterisk160, asterisk14) modified than a version in
between. Thanks!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

tim.verhoeven.be at gmail

Aug 25, 2009, 1:41 AM

Post #12 of 23 (4209 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>
> Thanks! There was already an asterisk160 package since the 22nd
> derived from the asterisk package with the changes
> asterisk->asterisk14 adapted to asterisk160.
>
> I tried to compare with asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm, but the
> differences are too big (I think you started off the Fedora imported
> package?). Could you check whether the asterisk160 package at ATrpms
> has all you need? If not, then I'd rather have all three packages
> (asterisk, asterisk160, asterisk14) modified than a version in
> between. Thanks!

Alright, I will have a look at them and report back if stuff needs to
be changed in your versions.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

tim.verhoeven.be at gmail

Aug 25, 2009, 8:02 AM

Post #13 of 23 (4203 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Tim
Verhoeven<tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>>
>> I tried to compare with asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm, but the
>> differences are too big (I think you started off the Fedora imported
>> package?). Could you check whether the asterisk160 package at ATrpms
>> has all you need? If not, then I'd rather have all three packages
>> (asterisk, asterisk160, asterisk14) modified than a version in
>> between. Thanks!
>
> Alright, I will have a look at them and report back if stuff needs to
> be changed in your versions.
>

Hi again,

I've made a small couple of changes to your version of the package. It
basically is a couple of directories that are missing. I moved some
file to the subpackages (that looks cleaner to me) and I've added a
logrotate configfile that Fedora used. It's all pretty trivial and
should normally also work for the other versions. Its available at :

http://people.atrpms.net/~tverhoeven/asterisk160-1.6.0.13-88.el5.src.rpm

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 25, 2009, 8:19 AM

Post #14 of 23 (4201 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 05:02:59PM +0200, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Tim
> Verhoeven<tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> >>
> >> I tried to compare with asterisk160-1.6.0.13-7.el5.src.rpm, but the
> >> differences are too big (I think you started off the Fedora imported
> >> package?). Could you check whether the asterisk160 package at ATrpms
> >> has all you need? If not, then I'd rather have all three packages
> >> (asterisk, asterisk160, asterisk14) modified than a version in
> >> between. Thanks!
> >
> > Alright, I will have a look at them and report back if stuff needs to
> > be changed in your versions.
> >
>
> Hi again,
>
> I've made a small couple of changes to your version of the package. It
> basically is a couple of directories that are missing. I moved some
> file to the subpackages (that looks cleaner to me) and I've added a
> logrotate configfile that Fedora used. It's all pretty trivial and
> should normally also work for the other versions. Its available at :
>
> http://people.atrpms.net/~tverhoeven/asterisk160-1.6.0.13-88.el5.src.rpm

Thanks, the changes make a lot of sense. I think they can be applied
to 1.6.1.x unmodified. I'm not sure the logrotate script would also
apply unmodified to asterisk14, but I'll add it, it's better than
nothing and asterisk14 users may suggest improvements later on.

I'll respin all packages and push them up later, thanks!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 25, 2009, 10:21 AM

Post #15 of 23 (4198 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:05:17PM +0200, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
> fxload-2008_10_13-0.el5.src.rpm (is a brand new package, dahdi-tools
> requires it)

I'll have to change it to Requires: /sbin/fxload, as on RHEL4 the
package does not build and fxload is provided by hotplug. I'll also
make the usb header detection dynamic to allow building on F11 and
F10.

Thanks!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

drees76 at gmail

Aug 25, 2009, 3:44 PM

Post #16 of 23 (4203 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:13:38PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> >> All the asterisk-extra-sounds packages are giving that cpio directory
>> >> rename error again...
>> >
>> > What's the state before the install? Are there symlinks in the game?
>> > Can you please uninstall the old packages and make sure eveything is
>> > clean and try to reinstall?
>
>> This appears to be identical to the core-sounds package problems I
>> reported earlier, except now affect the extra-sounds packages.
>
> OK, I hadn't moved over the fix to the extras packages, -58 will have
> this fixed.

Thanks Axel, the -58 packages work great!

-Dave

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

tim.verhoeven.be at gmail

Aug 26, 2009, 1:54 AM

Post #17 of 23 (4191 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>
> Here is a preliminary announcement:
>
> * There is asterisk 1.6, 1.4 and 1.2 support for up RHEL5/4 and
> F11/F10 in the repo. All packages are fresh with recent CVE fixes as
> well as the moh provider change. There are also some more
> dependencies added enabling some functionality that wasn't available
> until now.
>
> * Asterisk 1.2.x and asterisk 1.4.x have been renamed to asterisk12
> and asterisk14 respectively, similar for supporting packages. There
> are automatic upgrade paths to make asterisk 1.4 packages upgrade to
> asterisk14. Asterisk 1.6 packages will not be affected that way.
>

Hi again,

I've been talking to someone in #centos and he has a problem upgrading
to the latest Asterisk 1.4 version :

# yum -y update
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* base: mirror.files.bigpond.com
* updates: mirror.files.bigpond.com
* addons: mirror.files.bigpond.com
* extras: mirror.files.bigpond.com
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libtonezone.so.2.0 for package: asterisk14
---> Package asterisk14.i386 1:1.4.26.1-85.el5 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 for package: asterisk14
--> Processing Dependency: libradiusclient-ng.so.2 for package: asterisk14
--> Processing Dependency: libiksemel.so.3 for package: asterisk14
--> Processing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 for package: asterisk14
---> Package dahdi-tools.i386 1:2.2.0-62.el5 set to be updated
---> Package asterisk-core-sounds-en-alaw.noarch 0:1.4.15-58 set to be updated
---> Package asterisk-moh-opsound-wav.noarch 0:0.0.090818-56 set to be updated
---> Package asterisk-core-sounds-en-gsm.noarch 0:1.4.15-58 set to be updated
---> Package kernel.i686 0:2.6.18-128.7.1.el5 set to be installed
---> Package kernel-headers.i386 0:2.6.18-128.7.1.el5 set to be updated
---> Package asterisk-extra-sounds-en-alaw.noarch 0:1.4.9-57 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libradiusclient-ng2.i386 0:0.5.6-0.el5 set to be updated
---> Package asterisk14.i386 1:1.4.26.1-85.el5 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 for package: asterisk14
--> Processing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 for package: asterisk14
---> Package libiksemel3.i386 0:1.4-1.el5 set to be updated
---> Package libtonezone2.i386 1:2.2.0-62.el5 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
Error: Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
Error: Missing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)

I've did some checking. The gsm package is in bleeding. I guess
because it is a new package, so I presume it will end up in stable
sooner or later. The speex issue is a bit different. It seems this
version of Asterisk is compiled against the speex 1.2 present in
testing. I have a feeling that 1.4 used to be compiled against the one
in available in the OS. But I'm not really sure. I personally don't
mind using the version in testing. But it could mean that a lot of
people currently using 1.4 (and probably 1.2) will need to enable the
testing repo.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Aug 26, 2009, 9:53 AM

Post #18 of 23 (4182 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:54:57AM +0200, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
> I've been talking to someone in #centos and he has a problem upgrading
> to the latest Asterisk 1.4 version :

> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
> Error: Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
> Error: Missing Dependency: libgsm.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-85.el5.i386 (atrpms)
>
> I've did some checking. The gsm package is in bleeding. I guess
> because it is a new package, so I presume it will end up in stable
> sooner or later.

Good catch, I'll promote it right away.

> The speex issue is a bit different. It seems this version of
> Asterisk is compiled against the speex 1.2 present in testing. I
> have a feeling that 1.4 used to be compiled against the one in
> available in the OS. But I'm not really sure.

You are right.

> I personally don't mind using the version in testing. But it could
> mean that a lot of people currently using 1.4 (and probably 1.2)
> will need to enable the testing repo.

Same for 1.6 and 160. The new speex package is needed for Tuan Hoang's
packages, and its presence just medled into the asterisk builds.

Hm, I'm a bit undecided. I either rebuild all asterisk packages again
to build against the vendor speex, or force RHEL/CentOS/SL users uinto
using testing.

I think I'll bite the bullet and go rebuilding - again :(
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

tim.verhoeven.be at gmail

Sep 1, 2009, 2:39 AM

Post #19 of 23 (4099 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:05:17PM +0200, Tim Verhoeven wrote:
>> fxload-2008_10_13-0.el5.src.rpm (is a brand new package, dahdi-tools
>> requires it)
>
> I'll have to change it to Requires: /sbin/fxload, as on RHEL4 the
> package does not build and fxload is provided by hotplug. I'll also
> make the usb header detection dynamic to allow building on F11 and
> F10.

The fxload package we provide has the binary in /usr/sbin. So that
didn't work either :-) Anyway, here is a updated fxload package that
has the binary in /sbin. And hopefully then everything is in order
with this new setup. Its available at :

http://people.atrpms.net/~tverhoeven/fxload-2008_10_13-2.el5.src.rpm

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be [at] gmail - 0479 / 88 11 83

Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

apu at nocservices

Sep 13, 2009, 8:48 PM

Post #20 of 23 (3858 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

Axel,

First, thanks for all you do -- the repository is extremely helpful to many.

A question about the asterisk14 package (running on CentOS 5) though...
Should it require libspeex.so.1 instead of libspeexdsp.so.1? Or am I
missing something obvious?

# yum update asterisk14
[...]
--> Processing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 for package: asterisk14
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 (atrpms)
Error: Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 (atrpms)

# yum provides libspeex.so.1
[...]
speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1.i386 : A voice compression format (codec)
Matched from:
Other : libspeex.so.1

speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1.i386 : A voice compression format (codec)
Matched from:
Other : Provides-match: libspeex.so.1

# yum provides libspeexdsp.so.1
[...]
No Matches found

--
Apu <apu [at] nocservices>
NOC Services Corp.
www.nocservices.com

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Sep 13, 2009, 9:05 PM

Post #21 of 23 (3854 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:48:33PM -0400, Apu wrote:
> Axel,
>
> First, thanks for all you do -- the repository is extremely helpful to many.
>
> A question about the asterisk14 package (running on CentOS 5) though...
> Should it require libspeex.so.1 instead of libspeexdsp.so.1? Or am I
> missing something obvious?

It currently needs a newer speex as found in the testing repo. Tim
already pointed that out to me and I though I had fixed it, but the
yum install in the chroot still upgrades the speex package and creates
this aditional dependency. There is also a bug entry at
bugzilla.atrpms.net.

There is no harm using the speex package in testing, but I would
prefer to fix it, though.

> # yum update asterisk14
> [...]
> --> Processing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 for package: asterisk14
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 from atrpms has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 (atrpms)
> Error: Missing Dependency: libspeexdsp.so.1 is needed by package
> 1:asterisk14-1.4.26.1-86.el5.i386 (atrpms)
>
>
> # yum provides libspeex.so.1
> [...]
> speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1.i386 : A voice compression format (codec)
> Matched from:
> Other : libspeex.so.1
>
> speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1.i386 : A voice compression format (codec)
> Matched from:
> Other : Provides-match: libspeex.so.1
>
>
>
> # yum provides libspeexdsp.so.1
> [...]
> No Matches found
>
>
>

--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

apu at nocservices

Sep 13, 2009, 9:16 PM

Post #22 of 23 (3859 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On 9/14/09 12:05 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> It currently needs a newer speex as found in the testing repo. Tim
> already pointed that out to me and I though I had fixed it, but the
> yum install in the chroot still upgrades the speex package and creates
> this aditional dependency. There is also a bug entry at
> bugzilla.atrpms.net.
>
> There is no harm using the speex package in testing, but I would
> prefer to fix it, though.

I saw Tim's message and your "rebuilding again" reply (to which I'm
replying). But wasn't sure if something changed since then as you're
notorious for being prompt about doing something if you say you will.
Admittedly, I missed the bugzilla entry though.

Just trying to avoid enabling another repo to keep this particular
system as clean as possible.

Thanks for the speedy response!

--
Apu <apu [at] nocservices>
NOC Services Corp.
www.nocservices.com

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel [at] atrpms
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Sep 15, 2009, 8:02 AM

Post #23 of 23 (3832 views)
Permalink

Re: Revamped asterisk packages [In reply to]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:16:26AM -0400, Apu wrote:
> On 9/14/09 12:05 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > It currently needs a newer speex as found in the testing repo. Tim
> > already pointed that out to me and I though I had fixed it, but the
> > yum install in the chroot still upgrades the speex package and creates
> > this aditional dependency. There is also a bug entry at
> > bugzilla.atrpms.net.
> >
> > There is no harm using the speex package in testing, but I would
> > prefer to fix it, though.
>
> I saw Tim's message and your "rebuilding again" reply (to which I'm
> replying). But wasn't sure if something changed since then as you're
> notorious for being prompt about doing something if you say you will.

Indeed, I did try to fix this asap, but the buildsystem automatically
pulls in the new package again. It turns out this requires a larger
change in the buildsystem (plus testing).

> Admittedly, I missed the bugzilla entry though.
>
> Just trying to avoid enabling another repo to keep this particular
> system as clean as possible.
>
> Thanks for the speedy response!

You're welcome!
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads