[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Status of H323 packages in Sarge/Sid



 Hi,

 Though I have talked a bit about this with Steve on IRC, I have made
 some other checks and new things have arised.

 When I talk about VoIP packages in this mail, I refer to those listed
 with maintainer <pkg-voip-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, plus
 GnomeMeeting.

 After hard work these latest weeks, trying to get a new version of
 pwlib/openh323 set in Sarge, which fixes quite a lot bugs, and are also
 needed by latest version of GnomeMeeting (1.0.2), which also is part of
 GNOME Desktop 2.6 modules, we have faced that though every package is
 almost prepared for Sarge[1] only needed arm and mipsel buildds to
 catch up, GnomeMeeting fails to compile in hppa (#266111)

 This failure had happened every time version 1.0.2 has tried to be
 compiled in hppa, but anyway we're not sure if the failure comes from
 GnomeMeeting or from openh323, as GM compiles the same way in hppa
 than, say, ia64 and other arches. But by other hand, all the other
 packages which depend on pwlib/openh323 compiled fine in hppa.

 So, basically, we're copletely lost with this bug. And to round things
 a bit more, while trying to debug it, we faced other bug: GM 0.98.5 fails to
 compile from source in Sarge due to GTK_DISABLED_DEPRECATED flag being
 set on upstream sources. (#266442)

 This bug, as other RC bugs in GM or other VoIP packages which are
 closed in Sid but not in Sarge are being reported to 
 http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~sarge/

 This could be "solved" dropping GnomeMeeting from HPPA, but I don't
 know the Release Managers would accept that, and I don't want to try to
 force that through ftp-masters without the consent of RM.

 Any advice?

 Thanks a lot.

 [1] http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=pwlib%20openh323%20openam%20openmcu%20ohphone%20gnugk%20asterisk%20t38modem%20pstngw%20gnomemeeting
 
-- 
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
   jsogo@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: