Installation from source instructions
I'm still concerned that Confluence provides incomplete instructions for compiling from source. This is the way I always build it so that I can make some minor changes before compiling. Right now the finishing touches that help a user get FS running quickly are abandoned on https://freeswitch.org/confluence/display/FREESWITCH/FreeSWITCH+1.6+Video#Fr eeSWITCH1.6Video-StartingFreeSWITCH The last time I asked about this the response was that the packages contain systemd unit files and scripts that set permissions, but building from source is still left out. Also the current live instructions say to start FS manually, which will cause the known problems with creating databases and log files as the root user. By the time they get around to fixing up the newly compiled installation they will have to fight those permissions problems, too. Adding those abandoned instructions on the 1.6 Video page solves this problem. Will it be OK if I copy those permissions instructions and proven systemd unit file to the new Debian 8 installation page? Is there any serious objection to having it where it can be seen? Normally I would just copy it, but this seems to be a big deal and I want to get it right. Thanks. --- Bote FreeSWITCH Docs Janitor http://freeswitch.org/confluence
On 18 February 2016 at 13:50, Bote Man <bote_radio@botecomm.com> wrote:
I’m still concerned that Confluence provides incomplete instructions for compiling from source. This is the way I always build it so that I can make some minor changes before compiling.
I personally would appreciate any efforts to make the build from source docs more accurate and up-to-date. I understand that grabbing the FS repos is a great way to get going on freeswitch, but it's not practical all the time. For example, if you want to build on anything other than Debian, you will need to compile from src. Perhaps in the new docs, emphasis could be put on when you modify the modules.conf, and advise it's good practice to save it or version control it. Thanks! -- ------- inum: 883510009027723 sip: jungleboogie@sip2sip.info xmpp: jungle-boogie@jit.si
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support. Centos/rhel7 base support is understood and you can use the spec file as a guide for that, but it is in no way to be considered on feature parity with debian. Why no feature parity? Unfortunately there are libs available on debian that the other distros leave out that due to current licensing issues we can not distribute. This is completely a legal exposure issue for the project not a technical one. Until the other distros resolve this issue this will remain an issue. (If debian can figure a work Around i'm sure redhat can as well but they have not and dont appear to have any intension of doing so) This discussion comes up all too often lately and has been covered extensively in various forums. Now that being said there are 2 projects under way to get packaging done for ubuntu and to possibly expand the official packaging for centos. If this is something anyone is interested in sponsoring contact me or brian offlist of check out the go fund me that has been setup. Links for it are on the. Lists and freeswitch twitter feeds (sorry dont have it handy on my phone) Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:48 PM, jungle Boogie <jungleboogie0@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 February 2016 at 13:50, Bote Man <bote_radio@botecomm.com> wrote: I’m still concerned that Confluence provides incomplete instructions for compiling from source. This is the way I always build it so that I can make some minor changes before compiling.
I personally would appreciate any efforts to make the build from source docs more accurate and up-to-date. I understand that grabbing the FS repos is a great way to get going on freeswitch, but it's not practical all the time. For example, if you want to build on anything other than Debian, you will need to compile from src.
Perhaps in the new docs, emphasis could be put on when you modify the modules.conf, and advise it's good practice to save it or version control it.
Thanks!
-- ------- inum: 883510009027723 sip: jungleboogie@sip2sip.info xmpp: jungle-boogie@jit.si
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-docs mailing list Freeswitch-docs@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-docs
How to build RPM packages for dependences libs is described on page https://freeswitch.org/confluence/display/FREESWITCH/Creating+RPM+repositary If this page is accepted as generic way instruction for RPM based distros i will add instruction for compiling RPM of FreeSwitch. Sergey On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support.
Centos/rhel7 base support is understood and you can use the spec file as a guide for that, but it is in no way to be considered on feature parity with debian.
Why no feature parity? Unfortunately there are libs available on debian that the other distros leave out that due to current licensing issues we can not distribute. This is completely a legal exposure issue for the project not a technical one.
Until the other distros resolve this issue this will remain an issue. (If debian can figure a work Around i'm sure redhat can as well but they have not and dont appear to have any intension of doing so)
This discussion comes up all too often lately and has been covered extensively in various forums.
Now that being said there are 2 projects under way to get packaging done for ubuntu and to possibly expand the official packaging for centos. If this is something anyone is interested in sponsoring contact me or brian offlist of check out the go fund me that has been setup. Links for it are on the. Lists and freeswitch twitter feeds (sorry dont have it handy on my phone)
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:48 PM, jungle Boogie <jungleboogie0@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 February 2016 at 13:50, Bote Man <bote_radio@botecomm.com> wrote: I’m still concerned that Confluence provides incomplete instructions for compiling from source. This is the way I always build it so that I can make some minor changes before compiling.
I personally would appreciate any efforts to make the build from source docs more accurate and up-to-date. I understand that grabbing the FS repos is a great way to get going on freeswitch, but it's not practical all the time. For example, if you want to build on anything other than Debian, you will need to compile from src.
Perhaps in the new docs, emphasis could be put on when you modify the modules.conf, and advise it's good practice to save it or version control it.
Thanks!
-- ------- inum: 883510009027723 sip: jungleboogie@sip2sip.info xmpp: jungle-boogie@jit.si
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-docs mailing list Freeswitch-docs@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-docs
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-docs mailing list Freeswitch-docs@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-docs
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support.
If generic RPM based distro is not have package required for FS, I can write script what download SRPM and compile required package. Using this way is not necessary distribute source code of deepness, distributed only script how get it from internet (like BSD ports). Sergey
On 21 February 2016 at 19:06, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support.
Yep, that's all true. Not everyone will need/want video calling on their freeswitch, though. If the instructions to build from source are outdated/hard to find, it will only difficult for other distros and *BSDs to try getting video working.
Why no feature parity? Unfortunately there are libs available on debian that the other distros leave out that due to current licensing issues we can not distribute. This is completely a legal exposure issue for the project not a technical one.
The libraries are open source, right? Can links to the source be provided so others can try compiling on their OS? Is the source in FreeSWITCH's repo at https://freeswitch.org/stash/projects/SD for any OS or just for debian? I think it would be useful to have a document that explains what dependency is for what so that users would know what libraries are needed to compile certain features. thanks!
Its not just about video. Its about all the supporting libraries... starting with FreeSWITCH 1.6 most of the support deps there were in tree were removed because everyone complained about us carrying all those deps in tree... so we did what everyone wanted and thats started to depending on system libs... dont think 1.6 was just about video because it wasnt. there are littlerally 1000s of commits between 1.4 and 1.6 that are general improvement and bug fixes... As far as the some people dont care about video, this is absolutely true. However, leaving out a list of features by definition leaves those packages not at feature parity with other platforms. As far as whats in SD that is not an exhaustive list of deps thats just some of the ones we had to do to get things working on deb7, many still apply such as libvpx which no distro has a recent enough one. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:04 AM, jungle Boogie <jungleboogie0@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 February 2016 at 19:06, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support.
Yep, that's all true. Not everyone will need/want video calling on their freeswitch, though. If the instructions to build from source are outdated/hard to find, it will only difficult for other distros and *BSDs to try getting video working.
Why no feature parity? Unfortunately there are libs available on debian that the other distros leave out that due to current licensing issues we can not distribute. This is completely a legal exposure issue for the project not a technical one.
The libraries are open source, right? Can links to the source be provided so others can try compiling on their OS? Is the source in FreeSWITCH's repo at https://freeswitch.org/stash/projects/SD for any OS or just for debian?
I think it would be useful to have a document that explains what dependency is for what so that users would know what libraries are needed to compile certain features.
thanks!
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-docs mailing list Freeswitch-docs@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-docs
Guys, all I was asking about was the finishing touches, like setting permissions on the /usr/local/freeswitch directory tree and setting up systemd to start FreeSWITCH automagically. Those finishing touches were omitted when the “1.6 Video” page was converted to the current Debian Jessie page. I’m just curious if that was intentional or an oversight? I’ve read a number of questions in the past month or so from new users not knowing how to go that last 10% to get FS up and running. Packages are not involved when building from source AFAIK, so we have to lead them all the way down the path when building from source. Bote From: Ken Rice Sent: Monday, 22 February, 2016 02:21 Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-docs] Installation from source instructions Its not just about video. Its about all the supporting libraries... starting with FreeSWITCH 1.6 most of the support deps there were in tree were removed because everyone complained about us carrying all those deps in tree... so we did what everyone wanted and thats started to depending on system libs... dont think 1.6 was just about video because it wasnt. there are littlerally 1000s of commits between 1.4 and 1.6 that are general improvement and bug fixes... As far as the some people dont care about video, this is absolutely true. However, leaving out a list of features by definition leaves those packages not at feature parity with other platforms. As far as whats in SD that is not an exhaustive list of deps thats just some of the ones we had to do to get things working on deb7, many still apply such as libvpx which no distro has a recent enough one. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:04 AM, jungle Boogie <jungleboogie0@gmail.com> wrote: On 21 February 2016 at 19:06, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
The problem here is the shear number of things to be installed on non-debian platforms is still tbd in most cases forfull support.
Yep, that's all true. Not everyone will need/want video calling on their freeswitch, though. If the instructions to build from source are outdated/hard to find, it will only difficult for other distros and *BSDs to try getting video working.
Why no feature parity? Unfortunately there are libs available on debian that the other distros leave out that due to current licensing issues we can not distribute. This is completely a legal exposure issue for the project not a technical one.
The libraries are open source, right? Can links to the source be provided so others can try compiling on their OS? Is the source in FreeSWITCH's repo at https://freeswitch.org/stash/projects/SD for any OS or just for debian? I think it would be useful to have a document that explains what dependency is for what so that users would know what libraries are needed to compile certain features. thanks! _______________________________________________ Freeswitch-docs mailing list Freeswitch-docs@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-docs
participants (4)
-
Bote Man
-
jungle Boogie
-
Ken Rice
-
Sergey Safarov