Your message dated Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:28:39 +0000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fwd: Re: Bug#330983: asterisk: Building chan_zap.so (and five
other modules) requires zaptel.h at the wrong place
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Sep 2005 20:49:11 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 30 13:49:11 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from manchmal.in-ulm.de [217.10.9.201]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ELRod-0007SA-00; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:49:11 -0700
Received: from emmer.svc.manchmal.in-ulm.de (emmer.svc.manchmal.in-ulm.de
[192.168.19.25])
by manchmal.in-ulm.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C38136B5;
Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:49:08 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Christoph Biedl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: asterisk: Building chan_zap.so requires zaptel.h at the wrong place
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.8
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:49:07 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: asterisk
Version: 1:1.0.7.dfsg.1-2.1
Severity: normal
Re-building the asterisk package from the sources (I had to apply some
patches but this problem exists in the original Debian sources, too) I
found the chan_zap.so module was missing in the created packages. This
renders such a package quite unusable since communication using ISDN is
not possible any longer.
This happened due to checks in channels/Makefile which test for the
presence of '/usr/src/modules/zaptel/zaptel.h' and skip chan_zap
compilation if missing. However, there is no file in the Debian
distribution.
Workaround: Create the directory /usr/src/modules/zaptel and symlink
/usr/include/linux/zaptel.h (provided by zaptel-source) there.
Solution was probably to review debian/patches/08_debian-zaptel.dpatch
whether it really does things as it should do.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13.1
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 330983-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Nov 2005 19:28:54 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 09 11:28:54 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 88-109-1-15.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (bristol.purcell.id.au)
[88.109.1.15] (Debian-exim)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EZvcr-0003mg-00; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:28:54 -0800
Received: from [192.168.3.149] (helo=dell.purcell.id.au)
by bristol.purcell.id.au with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
id 1EZvcj-0002b7-6S
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:28:50 +0000
Received: from mark by dell.purcell.id.au with local (Exim 4.54)
id 1EZvce-0008Oe-86
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:28:40 +0000
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Length: 1755
From: Mark Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Debian GNU Linux
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:28:39 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
Disposition-Notification-To: Mark Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.3.149
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Re: Bug#330983: asterisk: Building chan_zap.so (and five other
modules) requires zaptel.h at the wrong place
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on bristol.purcell.id.au)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Packages: asterisk
Version: 1:1.0.9.dfsg-3
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Bug#330983: asterisk: Building chan_zap.so (and five other
modules) requires zaptel.h at the wrong place
Date: Tuesday 08 November 2005 22:59
From: Mark Purcell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Christoph Biedl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 10:04, Christoph Biedl wrote:
[...]
> I have been told the package was uploaded by the maintainer, not build
> on the Debian buildds. Which would also explain the bug report.
[...]
> This is not for the i386 architecture. I admit that this build log looks
> fine for alpha but cannot verify it (there's only i386 and hppa here).
OK the original asterisk_1:1.0.7.dfsg.1-2 package (i386) and buildds were
built against zaptel-source_1:1.0.7-1.
In the leadup to the release for sarge asterisk remained the same, however
zaptel-source tranisitioned to using modules-assistant and underwent a number
of NMU's and was released in sarge as zaptel (1:1.0.7-4.1).
The fix as pointed out originally is to update 08_debian-zaptel.dpatch to
acount for the new include file location. In fact the patch isn't needed at
all as the package compiles correctly without it :-( This is fixed in
unstable allready as this patch is no longer used.
I have now applied this to svn.debian.org under pkg-voip, to version
1:1.0.7.dfsg.1-2sarge1
Question is? Now the package is fixed how to get an additional upload into
stable?
Given the guidance in the developers reference, I'm not sure we qualify
against the critera:
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-upload-stabl
e
Mark
-------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
