[sr-dev] osp dependencies

[Jan Janak]

That's a pity, I was hoping that you kick our ... and solve it before
we are done discussing it with Andrei :-).

  Jan.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Klaus
Darilion<klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at> wrote:
> I now have reverted the commit and leave it as it was.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
> Jan Janak schrieb:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul<andrei at iptel.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 02, 2009 at 15:52, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
>>>> more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
>>>> auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
>>>> from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?
>>>
>>> It's unlikely that the same version would work with both ser rr & auth
>>> and k rr & auth (but I might be wrong).
>>> To be on the safe side I think you should move it back (to modules_k and
>>> modules_s) and make a note somewhere on the wiki (maybe a new page about
>>> module merge effort) that merging failed only because dependencies on rr
>>> and auth.
>>> You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.
>>
>> This particular module heavily depends on the tm callbacks and thus we
>> should have only one version and that is the version which is works
>> with the tm module from ser. I don't know which version Klaus took,
>> but I would suggest to take a version which works with our current
>> version of tm and add missing features to it from the other
>> implementation (i.e. the rr and auth stuff which originally linked
>> with headers in modules_k).
>>
>> As far as I can remember there were only minor differences between the
>> two versions, such as that the ser version did not use the rr api, or
>> something like that. But that should easy to fix.
>>
>>  Jan.
>