Bug#255662: Asterisk

[Mark Purcell]

--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

tags 255622 + pending
tags 247401 + pending
tags 249046 + pending
tags 253639 + pending
tags 254654 + pending
tags 250302 + pending
tags 255685 + pending
thanks

Jack,

You might also like to check out http://bugs.debian.org/255662 where
this issue has also been reported.

I have some more recent asterisk packages (fixing the pending bugs above
available at http://purcell.id.au/~msp, but these are currently lacking=20
H.323 support :-( and yes 1:0.91 is more recent than 1.0 :-((

Mark

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:11:06AM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Jack,
>=20
> Am Fr, den 09.07.2004 schrieb ms419@freezone.co.uk um 2:54:
> > Hi - I can't reach the Asterisk package maintainer, maybe someone here=
=20
> > can help?
> >=20
> > The Asterisk package in the unstable distribution depends on=20
> > "libopenh323-1.12.2" and "libpt-1.5.2", which aren't in unstable (bug=
=20
> > #255662). Instead, "libopenh323-1.13.2" and "libpt-1.6.3" are. I don't=
=20
> > understand how this could happen, since libopenh323-dev and libpt-dev=
=20
> > correspond to recent versions - so ${shlibs:Depends} should get=20
> > replaced by the available packages.
>=20
> Yes, that's a temporary state of UNSTABLE (That's why it's called that,
> for it may be broken every now and then). You may thus simply want to
> install the old openh323 and pwlib from testing, which still have that
> version. Currently we're working on moving forward to have a recent
> asterisk with the current pwlib/openh323. However that's unlikely to
> happen the next days, so you might encounter 2-3 weeks (maybe more)
> until the new packages are up.=20
>=20
> > Maybe the package simply needs to be rebuilt? I guess it's not possible=
=20
> > for this to happen automatically when a library version changes ...
>=20
> Automatic rebuild is not possible. APIs changed and the asterisk code
> does not support those new versions (yet). For now your best bet is
> simply taking the SARGE, a.k.a. testing version (which is 1.0-1).
>=20
> --=20
> Best regards,
>  Kilian



--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7l8NoCzanz0IthIRAqacAJ0amHHHis0UiiT/5qYyakXoT72IWQCfaJEi
ONnx476cSgYpJMzz+bIscJE=
=BZ5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0F1p//8PRICkK4MW--