TODO list for each hardware target can be found as sticky topic in the corresponding forum
Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? Hello
|
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? Trunk now has Asterisk 1.8, which I gather works at least as well as 1.6. I haven't had a chance to try it yet. I'm not sure what you're asking though. Do you mean bring the latest version (10.0.0) to Switchfin?
|
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? Thanks for the info. 1.8 is good enough. I just wanted to know
|
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?I asked and they confirmed it should work on uClinux, albeit with a small patch. I created a preliminary package for Switchfin and managed to build it fairly easily. I can't remember if I tried running it or not. I need to learn how to configure it and then test it out but funding for my company has been delayed so I've diverted my attention to other things for now. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?I have just pushed the Yate package to my GitHub branch. Everything you need is in that one commit so just apply the patch to your existing checkout. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? I think you misunderstood. Apply this whole commit as one patch against Switchfin. Here it is in its raw form. Then do "make menuconfig" to add Yate to your firmware and build away. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? It's very well worth learning but I'll make this easy for you. Code:wget -O - https://github.com/HaydenTech/switchfin/commit/558244ca9659b8b0223174300df0432ad6ab1737.diff | patch -p1 |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? But then, do you guys notice some issues such as memory fragmentation when using Asterisk? Or do you just reboot the Atcom regularly as a preemptive "solution"? Maybe this is actually a baseless fear, after all.
|
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?I haven't actually seen any problems with Asterisk in this regard because I haven't used it enough on this platform. I do believe that Asterisk is quite buggy and inconsistent in general though. I talked about this more in another thread. The FreeSWITCH rationale is worth a read. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? After checking out the latest Switchfin source using SVN and running the command above to download and apply the patch required to include Yate, I ran make.
FWIW, I used the default settings when running "make menuconfig", which includes those two SpanDSP-related items: Any idea? |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?
Yes, I'd much rather use Freeswitch because it's a more recent project launched by someone who knows Asterisk very well as an ex-developper, but its main author also said that getting it to run on an non-MMU would require significant changes. Should I edit some configuration files (which?) before re-running "make"? |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? Unfortunately, spandsp-0.0.6pre17.tgz is no longer available, and a patch was required before compiling it into Switchfin.
Code:
... and although it's minimal, I didn't find its equivalent in spandsp-0.0.6pre20.tgz:
|
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? News: "src/config.h is created when you run configure. If configure finds that rpl_malloc is needed, config.h will define it."
Any idea? |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?I've committed the SpanDSP update to the Subversion repository. You don't need SpanDSP to build Yate but it will use it if present. As to why the Yate build failed, I really don't know because it works for me. Try with a completely clean build and if it still fails, stick much more of the output on Pastebin so I can have a look. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? After running "svn update", "make clean", and "make", compiling goes much further, but finally ends with the following error:
Am I missing an option maybe? |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?This may be my fault. I made some unrelated clean ups to the build scripts, which I accidentally pushed along with the Yate package. It looks like my changes worked for Asterisk 1.6 but not 1.4. I'll have a look shortly. |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work?BTW, did you try the analog module provided by Yate with the FXO module of the Atcom in replacement for Zaptel? |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
Re: Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot of work? Well I'm having trouble building 1.4 for a different reason and my changes aren't to blame. I get this notorious error and I can't figure out why. It detected libtonezone just fine. I wish it would tell me what it actually failed to find.
Code:*********************************************************** |
|
|
|
Administrator has disabled public posting |
- Index
- » Developers
- » General discussions
- » Is porting Asterisk + modules a lot...
Most Active Users
Board Info
- Board Stats: Total Users: 2587 Total Topics: 299 Total Polls: 1 Total Posts: 1727 Dormant
- User Info: Newest User : user2553 Members Online: 0 Guests Online: 174
- Online There are no members online
- Topic
- New
- Locked
- Sticky
- Active
- New/Active
- New/Locked
- New Sticky
- Locked/Active
- Active/Sticky
- Sticky/Locked
- Sticky/Active/Locked






























