Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-05 Thread Steve Underwood
Moises Silva wrote: The latest versions of unicall (0.0.5) work with the latest spandsp (0.0.4), but I have done nothing about making either of them work with Asterisk. Minor changes were needed to chan_unicall. Anyone interested in using it can find it here:

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-04 Thread Steve Underwood
Moises Silva wrote: I would not call that properly a fix. We need to know why is failing in newer spandsp versions in the first place. Can you make a diff and post it? Why are people so determined to break things. If you want to use unicall-0.0.3pre11, use it with spandsp-0.0.2. The

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-04 Thread Moises Silva
On 8/4/07, Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why are people so determined to break things. If you want to use unicall-0.0.3pre11, use it with spandsp-0.0.2. Not really determined to break things, but to understand failures, even when those failures are because of version missmatching :)

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-03 Thread Moises Silva
Carlos, If you are interested we can meet us via MSN someday to debug the problem. I don't know if that's possible though, since it seems is your production server. Moy On 8/2/07, Luis Antonio Prata Barbosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Carlos, I suggest you download spandsp-0.0.3pre22.

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-03 Thread Carlos Chavez
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:23 -0300, Luis Antonio Prata Barbosa wrote: Hi Carlos, I suggest you download spandsp-0.0.3pre22. (http://www.neuwald.biz/files/spandsp-0.0.3pre22.gz) I don´t know why , spandsp after that uses digits 1,2..8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F instead of 1,2,..,9,0,A,B,C,D,E. So,

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-03 Thread Moises Silva
I would not call that properly a fix. We need to know why is failing in newer spandsp versions in the first place. Can you make a diff and post it? On 8/3/07, Carlos Chavez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:23 -0300, Luis Antonio Prata Barbosa wrote: Hi Carlos, I suggest

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-03 Thread Steve Underwood
Carlos Chavez wrote: It seems the problem with Unicall and Nextel is also present in Asterisk 1.2 and not only in 1.4. I decided to downgrade from 1.4.9 to 1.2.23 so the customer could have CID and calls from Nextel but today he told me that they cannot receive any calls from Nextel,

[asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-02 Thread Carlos Chavez
It seems the problem with Unicall and Nextel is also present in Asterisk 1.2 and not only in 1.4. I decided to downgrade from 1.4.9 to 1.2.23 so the customer could have CID and calls from Nextel but today he told me that they cannot receive any calls from Nextel, they get a busy tone

[asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-02 Thread Carlos Chavez
Here is a log with level 255 when a Nextel phone tries to call in: Aug 2 15:38:18 WARNING[32670]: chan_unicall.c:627 unicall_report: MFC/R2 UniCall/1 - 0001 [1/ 1/Idle /Idle ] Aug 2 15:38:18 WARNING[32670]: chan_unicall.c:627 unicall_report: MFC/R2 UniCall/1

Re: [asterisk-users] Unicall and Private CID

2007-08-02 Thread Luis Antonio Prata Barbosa
Hi Carlos, I suggest you download spandsp-0.0.3pre22. (http://www.neuwald.biz/files/spandsp-0.0.3pre22.gz) I don´t know why , spandsp after that uses digits 1,2..8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F instead of 1,2,..,9,0,A,B,C,D,E. So, do you get F digits that are incompatible with mfcr2 . Luis A P Barbosa.