Re: [asterisk-dev] Module Deprecation, Default Not Building, and Removal

2020-10-06 Thread Joshua C. Colp 
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jared Smith 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Dan Jenkins  wrote:
>
>> sorry, I thought I was agreeing with you :) we need to engage package
>> maintainers to potentially help ease the shift - if packages are a
>> thing but as far as I'm concerned most package managers have out of
>> date versions of Asterisk, or don't have things you want so you end up
>> building from source anyway
>>
>
> I actively package Asterisk for Fedora and EPEL (CentOS/RHEL), and I work
> hard to package the latest versions as they are released.  I'm always open
> to additional input on how to make my packages more relevant for consumers
> -- either by packaging additional modules, or by having better
> sub-packages.  For example, my packages already have chan_sip and pjsip
> split off as separate subpackages.
>

As a packager and someone who has been in the community and user world,
what's your opinion and thoughts on the 2 year strategy?

-- 
Joshua C. Colp
Asterisk Technical Lead
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at www.sangoma.com and www.asterisk.org
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Re: [asterisk-dev] Module Deprecation, Default Not Building, and Removal

2020-10-06 Thread Sylvain Boily 



On 2020-10-06 2:22 PM, Joshua C. Colp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jared Smith > wrote:


On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:50 AM Dan Jenkins mailto:d...@nimblea.pe>> wrote:

sorry, I thought I was agreeing with you :) we need to engage
package maintainers to potentially help ease the shift - if
packages are a thing but as far as I'm concerned most
package managers have out of date versions of Asterisk, or
don't have things you want so you end up building from source
anyway


I actively package Asterisk for Fedora and EPEL (CentOS/RHEL), and
I work hard to package the latest versions as they are released. 
I'm always open to additional input on how to make my packages
more relevant for consumers -- either by packaging additional
modules, or by having better sub-packages. For example, my
packages already have chan_sip and pjsip split off as separate
subpackages.


As a packager and someone who has been in the community and user 
world, what's your opinion and thoughts on the 2 year strategy?


Hello,

For us we have debian packages we maintain. We follow the latest stable 
version with a test suite and a bot make the package. So 2 years it's 
clearly not an issue. About chan_sip we completely removed it.


Sylvain
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Re: [asterisk-dev] Module Deprecation, Default Not Building, and Removal

2020-10-06 Thread Jared Smith 
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:23 PM Joshua C. Colp  wrote:

> As a packager and someone who has been in the community and user world,
> what's your opinion and thoughts on the 2 year strategy?
>

I'm fine with it... for faster-moving distributions (such as Fedora), users
are used to following new releases closely, and fast rate of change with
regards to changes in those major releases.  For slower-moving
distributions (CentOS/RHEL/etc.), people tend to stick with LTS releases,
but understand that there are typically bigger (less granular) changes
between LTS releases than there are between regular releases.

-Jared
-- 
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev