[ATrpms-users] Asterisk dependencies

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 12:48:20PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 03:42:50PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> >> Mark Wormgoor wrote:
> >>>> Would it make sense to remove the dependency of Asterisk on
> >>>> zaptel and libtonezone?  Or even spandsp?
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of us are using the natively SIP handsets like the Zyxel
> >>>> or Vtech...

> >>> Asterisk always needs zaptel. You need to have a good timing module, and 
> >>> only the zaptel kmdl provides them (ztdummy). The rc.d script for 
> >>> loading the kmdl is in the zaptel module.  And zaptel depends on 
> >>> libtonezone.

> >> There were some noises about further breaking Asterisk down into
> >> finer granularity.  That would be a good thing, and would more
> >> fully exploit the ability to tailor/configure Asterisk to a wide
> >> range of applications.
> >
> > Do you have a pointer?
> 
> I'm thinking back to your message of 5/31 (ref: <20060601000953.GJ2163 at neu.nirvana>).

I thought you meant something upstream. :)

> >> Has there been any movement on this?
> >>
> >> And what is the strategy?
> >
> > Not sure whether you mean some discussion at upstream level or at
> > package level.
> 
> I didn't look to see if Asterisk came with packaging done upstream
> or if ATrpms generates its own packaging (or heavily modifies
> upstream packaging).

No, there isn't any upstream strategy.

> >> Could the timing module ztdummy (since it doesn't actually correspond
> >> to real hardware, if I've understood correctly) be made part of a
> >> stand-alone asterisk-kmdl rpm instead?
> >>     
> >
> > Technically yes, but what would the gain be? A smaller kmdl package?
> > Zaptel kmdls are about 250-350k, not really big (if compared for
> > instance to the kernel rpm).
> >   
> 
> Well, I'm thinking that most of the zaptel package should be support for
> various physical cards.  If you're running pure VoIP with SIP peering
> with other call-managers, then you don't need to support any sort of
> trunking (FXS, FXO, PRI, T1/CCS, etc).

OK so far, but where is the drawback in having all of them? The loss
of 200k?

> The ztdummy module, on the other hand, sounds like it doesn't
> correspond to any particular hardware... it just provides a kernel
> service required by Asterisk itself.

You could argue about the whole kernel rpm that way, and people with
that hardware would prefer not to have drivers for all the other
hardware etc.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20060705/2d04e80b/attachment.bin