24 Jun
2009
24 Jun
'09
8:47 a.m.
Module: sip-router
Branch: master
Commit: 5d1a75a61b349690125db87c1e48b3de580613e6
URL:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=5d1a75a…
Author: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Committer: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Date: Wed Jun 24 15:44:10 2009 +0300
* Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
* Renamed ser to sip-router in Makefile, etc files and some core files.
* Renamed some etc files from ser based name to sip-router based name.
---
INSTALL | 214 +++++++++++++-----------
Makefile | 106 ++++++------
Makefile.defs | 2 +-
config.h | 2 +-
etc/dbtext.cfg | 6 +-
etc/{dictionary.ser => dictionary.sip-router} | 0
etc/nathelper.cfg | 24 ++--
etc/rules.m4 | 2 +-
etc/{ser-basic.cfg => sip-router-basic.cfg} | 14 +-
etc/{ser-oob.cfg => sip-router-oob.cfg} | 26 ++--
etc/{ser.cfg => sip-router.cfg} | 0
etc/{ser.cfg.m4 => sip-router.cfg.m4} | 46 +++---
etc/sr | 34 ++--
rad_dict.h | 2 +-
ser.8 | 48 +++---
15 files changed, 272 insertions(+), 254 deletions(-)
Diff:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commitdiff;h=5d1…
9:32 a.m.
On Jun 24, 2009 at 15:49, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
Not as far as I know. The only deadline is that the next kamailio
version based on sip-router (3.0?) should be ready around September
(please correct me if I'm wrong).
We still have the problem that we haven't decided yet on a short-name.
(while the project is called sip-router, we haven't decided on the short
binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to be very difficult since
there are a lot of very different opinions (we tried once before and we
gave up after 2 days because there was no agreement in sight).
Andrei
* Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to
sip-router
this was just a start. i'm sure there is still lot to do. do we have
any deadline on when first sip-router release (or its beta) should be
available?
9:49 a.m.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
We still have the problem that we haven't decided
yet on a short-name.
(while the project is called sip-router, we haven't decided on the short
binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to be very difficult since
there are a lot of very different opinions (we tried once before and we
gave up after 2 days because there was no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
-- juha
10:01 a.m.
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen wrote:
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I like this proposal, look simple and clear.
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual
We still have the problem that we haven't
decided yet on a short-name.
(while the project is called sip-router, we haven't decided on the short
binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to be very difficult since
there are a lot of very different opinions (we tried once before and we
gave up after 2 days because there was no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr. 
10:22 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I like this proposal, look simple and clear.
We still have the problem that we haven't
decided yet on a short-name.
(while the project is called sip-router, we haven't decided on the short
binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to be very difficult since
there are a lot of very different opinions (we tried once before and we
gave up after 2 days because there was no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
10:30 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other
identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
you propose inventing a new name? i would not like to repeat kamailio
ordeal.
anyone can call their binaries whatever they like. you just define
MAIN_NAME. in my opinion, the default in the repository can be
sip-router.
-- juha
10:39 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 04:30 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I would prefer to stick and keep the name as "sip express router"
rather
than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique identifier for the project.
Unlike you, I personally see the other way around. Those working with
the public project and spending resources in developing and promoting
the project, not a private platform based on the project, need something
to use. While any private distro can use a different name and binaries
by MAIN_NAME, the default public one should suggest without confusion
this particular project.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other
identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
you propose inventing a new name? i would not like to repeat kamailio
ordeal.
anyone can call their binaries whatever they like. you just define
MAIN_NAME. in my opinion, the default in the repository can be
sip-router.
10:50 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I would prefer to stick and keep the name as "sip
express router" rather
than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique identifier for the
project.
"sip express router" gives message that the project is just a new
version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
openser and kamailio. if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
one.
-- juha
11:14 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 04:50 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am not eager to find a new one, there is no pressure to release entire
project from sip-router.org git repository under new identity, so I was
happy with using ser so far and no others complained. SER can be from
"sip extensible router" or something else in the middle starting with
"E".
Regarding the relevance of contributions based on project name, you have
a lot if work done in ser as well, from before the openser fork. Many
others have as well and sip router as name does not suggest/recognize
better the work of people from different project.
While sip router is ok to preserve in a way or other in the name, there
is need for something like a middle name so one can quickly match this
project.
When talking with people about sip router, the first project coming in
their mind is ser, then is kamailio (openser) (and maybe others),
explaining the existence of a third one named exactly "sip router" is
kind of awkward and very confusing.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
I would prefer to stick and keep the name as
"sip express router" rather
than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique identifier for the
project.
"sip express router" gives message that the project is just a new
version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
openser and kamailio. if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
one.
11:42 a.m.
On Jun 24, 2009 at 17:14, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/24/2009 04:50 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Unfortunately this discussion seems to de-generate in a long thread and
honestly I don't think it would be useful. The only result I see is
time lost, time that could go into development, testing or docs.
The problem is that for something as simple as a short-name everybody
has a very strong opinion and there are very few objective criteria to
filter through the proposals.
I think the only constructive way to go forward is to find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
We could also delay this to some undefined future point :-)
For the record I do partially agree with Daniel. I do not want a new
"trademark" for the project, but I think we need a short name, something
only a few letter long. sr would be great, but unfortunately is too
common. ser would work for me too (I guess this is no surprise), but I
understand that some people might not want it.
Andrei
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am not eager to find a new one, there is no pressure to release entire
project from sip-router.org git repository under new identity, so I was
happy with using ser so far and no others complained. SER can be from
"sip extensible router" or something else in the middle starting with
"E".
Regarding the relevance of contributions based on project name, you have
a lot if work done in ser as well, from before the openser fork. Many
others have as well and sip router as name does not suggest/recognize
better the work of people from different project.
While sip router is ok to preserve in a way or other in the name, there
is need for something like a middle name so one can quickly match this
project.
When talking with people about sip router, the first project coming in
their mind is ser, then is kamailio (openser) (and maybe others),
explaining the existence of a third one named exactly "sip router" is
kind of awkward and very confusing. I would prefer to stick and keep the name as
"sip express router"
rather > than dry "sip router" -- it
makes an unique identifier for the
project.
"sip express router" gives message that the project is just a new
version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
openser and kamailio. if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
one.
2:25 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 05:42 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009 at 17:14, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am of same opinion, my focus was to get things integrated, but the
changes started to happen already, being committed without a proper
discussion here -- not something good from collaboration point of view.
So now all my testing environment is broken, scripts, paths and so on
and maybe has to be changed again soon. Probably such actions needs more
than one hour decision and quickly commit because one just liked more a
new name than existing one.
Daniel
On 06/24/2009 04:50 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Unfortunately this discussion seems to de-generate in a long thread and
honestly I don't think it would be useful. Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am not eager to find a new one, there is no pressure to release entire
project from sip-router.org git repository under new identity, so I was
happy with using ser so far and no others complained. SER can be from
"sip extensible router" or something else in the middle starting with
"E".
Regarding the relevance of contributions based on project name, you have
a lot if work done in ser as well, from before the openser fork. Many
others have as well and sip router as name does not suggest/recognize
better the work of people from different project.
While sip router is ok to preserve in a way or other in the name, there
is need for something like a middle name so one can quickly match this
project.
When talking with people about sip router, the first project coming in
their mind is ser, then is kamailio (openser) (and maybe others),
explaining the existence of a third one named exactly "sip router" is
kind of awkward and very confusing.
I would prefer to stick and keep the name as
"sip express router"
rather > than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique
identifier for the
project.
"sip express router" gives message that the project is just a
new
version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
openser and kamailio. if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
one.
The only result I see is
time lost, time that could go into development, testing or docs.
The problem is that for something as simple as a short-name everybody
has a very strong opinion and there are very few objective criteria to
filter through the proposals.
I think the only constructive way to go forward is to find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
We could also delay this to some undefined future point :-)
For the record I do partially agree with Daniel. I do not want a new
"trademark" for the project, but I think we need a short name, something
only a few letter long. sr would be great, but unfortunately is too
common. ser would work for me too (I guess this is no surprise), but I
understand that some people might not want it.
Andrei
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
2:38 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I am of same opinion, my focus was to get things
integrated, but the
changes started to happen already, being committed without a proper
discussion here -- not something good from collaboration point of
view.
i asked about renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is
ok. if project does not like its own name to be used in default
configuration then please go ahead and undo the changes. i'm not going
to get involved with anything that has 'ser' or 'kamailio' hardwired in
the default config or makefiles.
-- juha
2:57 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 08:38 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
so probably this means the entire project, or? IIRC I replied quite
quickly questioning such decision and suggesting to keep ser for now.
I am of same opinion, my focus was to get things
integrated, but the
changes started to happen already, being committed without a proper
discussion here -- not something good from collaboration point of
view.
i asked about renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is
ok. if project does not like its own name to be used in
default
configuration then please go ahead and undo the changes. i'm not going
to get involved with anything that has 'ser' or 'kamailio' hardwired in
the default config or makefiles.
I think such attitude is not going anywhere. What is missing now is that
I would say "I am not going to be involved in anything having sip-router
hardwired". Sad to see this.
The problem that is risen now is the type of actions taken, while we
agreed that any changes to common framework have to be properly
discussed on devel list, radical changes were done without this rule. I
know that this particular issue is a matter of tastes and personal
preferences, that's why needs careful handling.
It might be easier and nicer for you now, but you just broke about 10
testing instances I have.
Jumping and changing quickly is not a solution, coming back asking
others to do update to something else if they do not like the current
just committed is more like chaos. In this way, during one day we can
get hell-out of many names.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
3:08 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
i don't know about entire project. i just changed ser.cfg to
sip-router.cfg and what else it implied.
i asked about
renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is
ok.
so probably this means the entire project, or? IIRC I replied quite
quickly questioning such decision and suggesting to keep ser for now. I think such attitude is not going anywhere. What is
missing now is that
I would say "I am not going to be involved in anything having sip-router
hardwired". Sad to see this.
if you want to make it easy to use your own name, change Makefile system
so that no file names are hardwired. they simply my changing MAIN_NAME
you can get every file (config files, man pages, etc.) named whatever
way you like.
The problem that is risen now is the type of actions
taken, while we
agreed that any changes to common framework have to be properly
discussed on devel list, radical changes were done without this rule. I
know that this particular issue is a matter of tastes and personal
preferences, that's why needs careful handling.
i didn't rename any k files or their contents. i only edited and
renamed ser to sip-router. i thought that jan as member or ser project
could give such an ok.
-- juha
3:27 p.m.
On Jun 24, 2009 at 22:08, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
I think you should have done that.
Andrei
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
i don't know about entire project. i just changed ser.cfg to
sip-router.cfg and what else it implied.
You single-handledly changed everything, including the binary name.
I don't care so much how a config file is called, but so far there is no
decision for the binary name so it should not be changed (I'll revert
it).
Even the config changes went a little bit too far, breaking all the
scripts (but at least you're taking care of that), for no good reason.
i asked
about renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is
ok.
so probably this means the entire project, or? IIRC I replied quite
quickly questioning such decision and suggesting to keep ser for now. I think such attitude is not going anywhere. What
is missing now is that
I would say "I am not going to be involved in anything having sip-router
hardwired". Sad to see this.
if you want to make it easy to use your own name, change Makefile system
so that no file names are hardwired. they simply my changing MAIN_NAME
you can get every file (config files, man pages, etc.) named whatever
way you like. The problem that is risen now is the type of
actions taken, while we
agreed that any changes to common framework have to be properly
discussed on devel list, radical changes were done without this rule. I
know that this particular issue is a matter of tastes and personal
preferences, that's why needs careful handling.
i didn't rename any k files or their contents. i only edited and
renamed ser to sip-router. i thought that jan as member or ser project
could give such an ok.
3:35 p.m.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
You single-handledly changed everything, including the
binary name.
I don't care so much how a config file is called, but so far there is no
decision for the binary name so it should not be changed (I'll revert
it).
fine, make it "undecided".
-- juha
3:39 p.m.
Juha Heinanen writes:
fine, make it "undecided".
i would like to add that i'm coming from kamailio project and using
binary name "ser" in sip-router project is not acceptable to me. there
was never a decision on that. it just happened. "sip-router" is a
neutral choice until the community votes on the final name.
-- juha
4:15 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 09:39 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Juha Heinanen writes:
...
coming from same direction and for me is not acceptable that strong
personal opinions/interests drive decisions regarding the core framework
and public project without proper discussion.
I and probably others have completely different names when deploying the
application in particular cases, but that is something I keep it inside
my company as patches or cloned repository. Sure would be easy if I
would change it on the public project so the others will do it, not me,
but we are a group of people that invest a lot of their private
resources, so we should act democratically.
Now happened with the name, but in the future one can think of something
else, turning in a chaotic evolution, so we rather (and better) have it
clear from this point of time, otherwise makes no sense to continue.
Daniel
fine, make it "undecided".
i would like to add that i'm coming from kamailio project and using
binary name "ser" in sip-router project is not acceptable to me. there
was never a decision on that. it just happened. "sip-router" is a
neutral choice until the community votes on the final name.
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
4:22 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Now happened with the name, but in the future one can
think of something
else, turning in a chaotic evolution, so we rather (and better) have it
clear from this point of time, otherwise makes no sense to continue.
daniel,
rather than complaining, work on the goal that allows you to change the
binary name and name used in the docs and scripts by changing MAIN_NAME in
Makefile.defs.
-- juha
4:40 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 10:22 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
well, I haven't seen such attitude and commitment when was about
updating the modules to compile with sip router or porting k tm or core
features. But suddenly because one decides alone to do some change,
others should work to fix it now. No, thanks. My list of volunteer work
is full of other more useful things at this time. Probably I am not the
best one to ask for more free contribution on useless aspects, besides
the fact makefile is not a strong point of me.
I believe I am not sitting aside at all and complaining to others to do
something for me. It got to this point because of how the rename action
was undertaken. Be sure I would have had same reaction if something else
would have been changed in the core affecting the project.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
Now happened with the name, but in the future one
can think of something
else, turning in a chaotic evolution, so we rather (and better) have it
clear from this point of time, otherwise makes no sense to continue.
daniel,
rather than complaining, work on the goal that allows you to change the
binary name and name used in the docs and scripts by changing MAIN_NAME in
Makefile.defs.
3:22 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
daniel,
i just checked and my debian build (the one that i posted to the list) went
thought without any errors after the ser -> sip-router change.
-- juha
3:34 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
daniel,
i just checked and my debian build (the one that i posted to the list) went
thought without any errors after the ser -> sip-router change.
-- juha
Just adding report that compiled without error on OpenSUSE 11.1
To preserve directory structure adopted by OpenSUSE, compilation command
was:
make prefix=/ LOCALBASE=/ man_prefix=/usr install
Edson.
3:45 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Hello,
On 06/24/2009 09:34 PM, Edson - Lists wrote:
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
I am not using debs or rpms. I
use the source code.
So now everything related to installation changed in not time, like
binaries, paths, cfg files -- lot of things I built to make the
migration and integration going faster and better became worthless.
I have nothing against building the make framework where changing name
does it smoothly across all source code, config file, installation
paths. But changing the defaults really affects lot of existing stuff.
So at least should be announced, once agreed at some point.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
daniel,
i just checked and my debian build (the one that i posted to the
list) went
thought without any errors after the ser -> sip-router change.
-- juha
Just adding report that compiled without error on OpenSUSE 11.1
To preserve directory structure adopted by OpenSUSE, compilation
command was:
make prefix=/ LOCALBASE=/ man_prefix=/usr install
3:51 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla escreveu:
Hello,
On 06/24/2009 09:34 PM, Edson - Lists wrote:
Sorry, Daniel...
Just that I think that You misunderstand my e-mail.... I just reported
that compilation went ok and included the command used to accomplish it.
I also use source code.
The default name discussion is a complete another story from my report.
Edson.
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
I am not using debs or rpms.
I use the source code.
So now everything related to installation changed in not time, like
binaries, paths, cfg files -- lot of things I built to make the
migration and integration going faster and better became worthless.
I have nothing against building the make framework where changing name
does it smoothly across all source code, config file, installation
paths. But changing the defaults really affects lot of existing stuff.
So at least should be announced, once agreed at some point.
Daniel
daniel,
i just checked and my debian build (the one that i posted to the
list) went
thought without any errors after the ser -> sip-router change.
-- juha
Just adding report that compiled without error on OpenSUSE 11.1
To preserve directory structure adopted by OpenSUSE, compilation
command was:
make prefix=/ LOCALBASE=/ man_prefix=/usr install 
4:34 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Andrei
Pelinescu-Onciul<andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote:
I think the only constructive way to go forward is to
find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
I believe this would be the most reasonable way to move forward.
--
Victor Pascual Ávila
4:53 p.m.
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Andrei
Pelinescu-Onciul<andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote:
The question are:
- Does SIP-Router need *right now* the final official name in order to rename
binaries, scripts and config files with it?
- If it's too soon for that, does SIP-Router need *right now* an unique
identifier (something more "unique" than sip-router and less ambiguous than
"ser") for internal user?
I propose a different solution:
A common user or person which doesn't know about the project's origin will not
inspect the sources to find the binary and realize of the software "name".
So the internal identifier could remain as it's now ("ser") in order to make
easy the continuous development.
But in parallel a new official name could be choosen ("Hyper-SIP-Proxy-
MegaPRO") and that would be the name announced in public meeting, web page and
so.
Then, when the first release of Hyper-SIP-Proxy-MegaPRO arrives, all the
binaries, scripts and config files would be renamed to "hyper-sip-proxy-
megapro" (we avoid changing two times the internal identifier during the long
development process).
What doesn't make sense (IMHO) is mantaining "SIP-Router" in the official
page
for long time, and when some people already knows it then releasing a new
official name (this would create confusion).
Just my 3 cents.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
I think the only constructive way to go forward
is to find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
I believe this would be the most reasonable way to move forward.
10:39 a.m.
New subject: [sr-dev] git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 15:22:50 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
wrote:
Hi Daniel, I was just speaking about the binary/config name, not the project
name.
I supposed that if sip-router is been used as project name from the beginning,
chaning it now could be dangerous ... another project name change in less
than a year ? ... buff I don't see it
--
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
Dimensión Virtual
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
Cheers,
Daniel Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I like this proposal, look simple and clear. We still have the problem that we haven't
decided yet on a
short-name. (while the project is called sip-router, we haven't
decided on the short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to
be very difficult since there are a lot of very different opinions
(we tried once before and we gave up after 2 days because there was
no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
10:50 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 04:39 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 15:22:50 Daniel-Constantin
Mierla wrote:
I think you do a confusion at this particular time. Kamailio project
goes on because there are overlapping modules from ser that won't be
integrated. I don't think that people would be happy to drop modules
from a side or another (e.g., like auth modules that are present in both
modules_k and modules_s).
We are talking about this particular project hosted by sip-router.org
which had no release so far, but needs an identity. Next version of
kamailio will still be named kamailio and include the modules inherited
from kamailio, probably including some modules from ser as well.
As it seems a pure ser release is not planned yet, we can stick with
this name for a while, because it is there and it is unique. In
kamailio, we do releases every 6 months, therefore September is just
about the time.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor
Santana wrote:
Hi Daniel, I was just speaking about the binary/config name, not the project
name.
I supposed that if sip-router is been used as project name from the beginning,
chaning it now could be dangerous ... another project name change in less
than a year ? ... buff I don't see it
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
Cheers,
Daniel
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
> We still have the problem that we haven't decided yet on a
> short-name. (while the project is called sip-router, we haven't
> decided on the short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to
> be very difficult since there are a lot of very different opinions
> (we tried once before and we gave up after 2 days because there was
> no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
I like this proposal, look simple and clear.
11:06 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
We are talking about this particular project hosted by
sip-router.org
which had no release so far, but needs an identity. Next version of
kamailio will still be named kamailio and include the modules inherited
from kamailio, probably including some modules from ser as well.
this is news to me. i'm pretty sure that there was a plan that 1.5 will
be the last version of kamailio, but haven't checked mail archives.
if that will not be the case, it would have made no sense to start
putting all kinds of migration documentation there. we should have
simply kept on using the k site and update the docs there.
if you plan to keep on using name kamailio, then you can do whatever
name changes you want there when you package next version of kamailio.
i'm not going to be any part of that, but keep on using and contributing
only to sip router project.
regarding modules, everyone can pick from modules subdirs whatever
modules they like to use. over time it would make sense to try to unite
k and ser modules when feasible in order to save maintenance resources.
-- juha
11:20 a.m.
On Jun 24, 2009 at 18:06, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
I haven't checked them either but AFAIK 1.5 was supposed to be the last
version _not_ based on sip-router.
We are talking about this particular project
hosted by sip-router.org
which had no release so far, but needs an identity. Next version of
kamailio will still be named kamailio and include the modules inherited
from kamailio, probably including some modules from ser as well.
this is news to me. i'm pretty sure that there was a plan that 1.5 will
be the last version of kamailio, but haven't checked mail archives. From a technical point of view is just not possible to
merge everything
till September. We have a lot of modules we have not even began to
discuss, we have completely different DB schemes a.s.o.
So while the goal is to completely merge kamailio and ser under
sip-router (with perhaps some duplicate modules), it will take a while
(hopefully 1 extra release cycle will be enough).
if that will not be the case, it would have made no sense to start
putting all kinds of migration documentation there. we should have
simply kept on using the k site and update the docs there.
if you plan to keep on using name kamailio, then you can do whatever
name changes you want there when you package next version of kamailio.
i'm not going to be any part of that, but keep on using and contributing
only to sip router project.
regarding modules, everyone can pick from modules subdirs whatever
modules they like to use. over time it would make sense to try to unite
k and ser modules when feasible in order to save maintenance resources.
Yes, there is a lot of work ahead of us (discuss on a module by module
basis, decide on the DB schema, new module interface a.s.o.) but we'll
slowly get there. So far at least from my point of view the priority is
to be able to build a stable kamailio and ser distributions out of
sip-router.
Andrei
11:27 a.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 05:06 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
yes, this is a long term goal. But that cannot be achieved now, so we
have overlapping modules, overlapping tools, overlapping table names but
different structure. The development and contributions are and will be
done only to sip-router.org repository.
Complete module integration will take some time, cannot be done up to
autumn and some are very delicate as people have tools relaying on
current db structure of each project -- just for example, kamctl cannot
handle ser db, serctl cannot handle kamailio db. Of course you can mix
modules from both project, because you have the insights, but for a
public release it will be a nightmare from support point of view.
So, to conclude, I am talking about public releases, not something (us
as developers or very familiar users) build internally and use in our
products/solutions. So when new users come, we can give them straight
and clear answers.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
We are talking about this particular project
hosted by sip-router.org
which had no release so far, but needs an identity. Next version of
kamailio will still be named kamailio and include the modules inherited
from kamailio, probably including some modules from ser as well.
this is news to me. i'm pretty sure that there was a plan that 1.5 will
be the last version of kamailio, but haven't checked mail archives.
if that will not be the case, it would have made no sense to start
putting all kinds of migration documentation there. we should have
simply kept on using the k site and update the docs there.
if you plan to keep on using name kamailio, then you can do whatever
name changes you want there when you package next version of kamailio.
i'm not going to be any part of that, but keep on using and contributing
only to sip router project.
regarding modules, everyone can pick from modules subdirs whatever
modules they like to use. over time it would make sense to try to unite
k and ser modules when feasible in order to save maintenance resources.
4:31 p.m.
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla escribió:
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana
wrote:
Ops, I always really though that SIP-Router was the final name ¿?
If not, when will it be decided?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others. Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I like this proposal, look simple and clear. We still have the problem that we haven't
decided yet on a
short-name. (while the project is called sip-router, we haven't
decided on the short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to
be very difficult since there are a lot of very different opinions
(we tried once before and we gave up after 2 days because there was
no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
5:04 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
On 06/24/2009 10:31 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla escribió:
see the minutes after the Karlsruhe meeting:
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2008-November/000051.html
The short name was taken in consideration at that time and mentioned as
to-do, therefore a latter decision. sip-router started as project to
create the common core and tm for k and ser, but not as stand-alone
application name.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor
Santana wrote:
Ops, I always really though that SIP-Router was the final name ¿?
If not, when will it be decided?
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
> We still have the problem that we haven't decided yet on a
> short-name. (while the project is called sip-router, we haven't
> decided on the short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to
> be very difficult since there are a lot of very different opinions
> (we tried once before and we gave up after 2 days because there was
> no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
I like this proposal, look simple and clear.
4:29 p.m.
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana escribió:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
Me too. It's the expected one.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
I like this proposal, look simple and clear. We still have the problem that we haven't
decided yet on a short-name.
(while the project is called sip-router, we haven't decided on the
short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to be very difficult
since there are a lot of very different opinions (we tried once before
and we gave up after 2 days because there was no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
1:40 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Hi, Juha...
Just downloaded a clean source and try a compilation.... At the end I got:
# TLS configuration
touch //etc/sip-router//tls.cfg
install -m 644 modules/tls/tls.cfg //etc/sip-router/
modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh -d //etc/sip-router/
make: modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh: Command not found
make: *** [install-cfg] Error 127
and on the directory the file stills is named: ser_cert.sh
Edson.
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
Module: sip-router
Branch: master
Commit: 5d1a75a61b349690125db87c1e48b3de580613e6
URL:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=5d1a75a…
Author: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Committer: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
Date: Wed Jun 24 15:44:10 2009 +0300
* Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
* Renamed ser to sip-router in Makefile, etc files and some core files.
* Renamed some etc files from ser based name to sip-router based name.
---
INSTALL | 214 +++++++++++++-----------
Makefile | 106 ++++++------
Makefile.defs | 2 +-
config.h | 2 +-
etc/dbtext.cfg | 6 +-
etc/{dictionary.ser => dictionary.sip-router} | 0
etc/nathelper.cfg | 24 ++--
etc/rules.m4 | 2 +-
etc/{ser-basic.cfg => sip-router-basic.cfg} | 14 +-
etc/{ser-oob.cfg => sip-router-oob.cfg} | 26 ++--
etc/{ser.cfg => sip-router.cfg} | 0
etc/{ser.cfg.m4 => sip-router.cfg.m4} | 46 +++---
etc/sr | 34 ++--
rad_dict.h | 2 +-
ser.8 | 48 +++---
15 files changed, 272 insertions(+), 254 deletions(-)
Diff:
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commitdiff;h=5d1…
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
1:43 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Seems that it has other problems, since in /etc I found two files that
shouldn't be there
:
Kamailio-151:~/sr/sip-router # l /etc/sip-router*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44865 Jun 10 16:11 /etc/sip-routerser-advanced.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3460 Jun 10 16:11 /etc/sip-routerser.cfg
/etc/sip-router:
total 140
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jun 24 14:40 ./
drwxr-xr-x 96 root root 12288 Jun 11 23:54 ../
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5744 Jun 10 16:11 dictionary.ser
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5744 Jun 24 14:40 dictionary.sip-router
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 891 Jun 10 16:11 ser-selfsigned.key
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1119 Jun 10 16:11 ser-selfsigned.pem
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44977 Jun 24 14:16 sip-router-advanced.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44977 Jun 24 14:40 sip-router-advanced.cfg.sample
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3516 Jun 24 14:16 sip-router.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3516 Jun 24 14:40 sip-router.cfg.sample
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1779 Jun 24 14:40 tls.cfg
Kamailio-151:~/sr/sip-router #
Edson.
Edson - Lists escreveu:
Hi, Juha...
Just downloaded a clean source and try a compilation.... At the end I
got:
# TLS configuration
touch //etc/sip-router//tls.cfg
install -m 644 modules/tls/tls.cfg //etc/sip-router/
modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh -d //etc/sip-router/
make: modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh: Command not found
make: *** [install-cfg] Error 127
and on the directory the file stills is named: ser_cert.sh
Edson.
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
> Module: sip-router
> Branch: master
> Commit: 5d1a75a61b349690125db87c1e48b3de580613e6
> URL:
>
http://git.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/sip-router/?a=commit;h=5d1a75a…
>
>
> Author: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
> Committer: Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com>
> Date: Wed Jun 24 15:44:10 2009 +0300
>
> * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
>
> * Renamed ser to sip-router in Makefile, etc files and some core files.
> * Renamed some etc files from ser based name to sip-router based name.
>
> ---
>
> INSTALL | 214
> +++++++++++++-----------
> Makefile | 106 ++++++------
> Makefile.defs | 2 +-
1:57 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Edson - Lists writes:
Seems that it has other problems, since in /etc I
found two files that
shouldn't be there
:
Kamailio-151:~/sr/sip-router # l /etc/sip-router*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44865 Jun 10 16:11 /etc/sip-routerser-advanced.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3460 Jun 10 16:11 /etc/sip-routerser.cfg
i don't know where those two come from. when i search 'advanced' at
root dir, i get:
$ egrep advanced *
ChangeLog: - advanced synchronization functions: atomic operations (inc,
Makefile: > $(cfg_prefix)/$(cfg_dir)sip-router-advanced.cfg.sample
Makefile: chmod 644 $(cfg_prefix)/$(cfg_dir)sip-router-advanced.cfg.sample
Makefile: ! -f $(cfg_prefix)/$(cfg_dir)sip-router-advanced.cfg ]; then \
Makefile: mv -f $(cfg_prefix)/$(cfg_dir)sip-router-advanced.cfg.sample \
Makefile: $(cfg_prefix)/$(cfg_dir)sip-router-advanced.cfg; \
which look ok to me.
-- juha
1:51 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Edson - Lists writes:
Just downloaded a clean source and try a
compilation.... At the end I
got:
# TLS configuration
touch //etc/sip-router//tls.cfg
install -m 644 modules/tls/tls.cfg //etc/sip-router/
modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh -d //etc/sip-router/
make: modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh: Command not found
make: *** [install-cfg] Error 127
and on the directory the file stills is named: ser_cert.sh
try now again with modules/tls from git.
-- juha
1:59 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
Edson - Lists writes:
Passed...
But now:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.8 > //share/man//man8/sip-router.8
/bin/sh: sip-router.8: No such file or directory
make: *** [install-sip-router-man] Error 1
Edson.
Just downloaded a clean source and try a
compilation.... At the end I
got:
# TLS configuration
touch //etc/sip-router//tls.cfg
install -m 644 modules/tls/tls.cfg //etc/sip-router/
modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh -d //etc/sip-router/
make: modules/tls/sip-router_cert.sh: Command not found
make: *** [install-cfg] Error 127
and on the directory the file stills is named: ser_cert.sh
try now again with modules/tls from git.
-- juha
2:32 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Edson - Lists writes:
But now:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.8 > //share/man//man8/sip-router.8
/bin/sh: sip-router.8: No such file or directory
should be fixed now. what next?
-- juha
2:38 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
Edson - Lists writes:
Don't know... yet... waiting fresh compilation to finish... ;)
Edson.
But now:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.8 > //share/man//man8/sip-router.8
/bin/sh: sip-router.8: No such file or directory
should be fixed now. what next?
-- juha
2:51 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
Edson - Lists writes:
Another one:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.cfg.5 >
//share/man//man5/sip-router.cfg.5
/bin/sh: sip-router.cfg.5: No such file or directory
make: *** [install-sip-router-man] Error 1
Edson.
But now:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.8 > //share/man//man8/sip-router.8
/bin/sh: sip-router.8: No such file or directory
should be fixed now. what next?
-- juha
3:03 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Edson - Lists writes:
Another one:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.cfg.5 >
//share/man//man5/sip-router.cfg.5
/bin/sh: sip-router.cfg.5: No such file or directory
make: *** [install-sip-router-man] Error 1
thanks for testing. that one should be now ok.
-- juha
3:05 p.m.
New subject: git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router
Juha Heinanen escreveu:
Edson - Lists writes:
Yep... this one is ok....
Here is the new one:
# FIXME: This is a hack, this should be (and will be) done properly in
sed -e
"s#^DEFAULT_SCRIPT_DIR.*#DEFAULT_SCRIPT_DIR=\"//share/sip-router/\"#g"
\
< scripts/mysql/sip-router_mysql.sh >
//sbin//sip-router_mysql.sh
/bin/sh: scripts/mysql/sip-router_mysql.sh: No such file or directory
make: *** [install-utils] Error 1
Edson.
Another one:
#/usr/lib/sip-router/modules_k\([^_]\)#//lib/sip-router/modules_k\1#g" \
-e "s#/usr/share/doc/sip-router/##g" \
< sip-router.cfg.5 >
//share/man//man5/sip-router.cfg.5
/bin/sh: sip-router.cfg.5: No such file or directory
make: *** [install-sip-router-man] Error 1
thanks for testing. that one should be now ok.
-- juha
5676
days inactive
5676
days old
44 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Edson - Lists -
Iñaki Baz Castillo -
jh＠tutpro.com -
Juha Heinanen
-
Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana -
Victor Pascual Ávila