| 02:31.29 | *** join/#asterisk-dev zerohalo (~zerohalo@74.60.136.128) |
| 03:24.19 | *** join/#asterisk-dev file (~file@asterisk/developer-and-muffin-lover/file) |
| 03:24.19 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o file] by ChanServ |
| 03:28.41 | *** join/#asterisk-dev micols (~ident@rlogin.dk) |
| 05:57.21 | *** join/#asterisk-dev moy (~moy@189.172.62.190) |
| 07:14.28 | *** join/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@197.168.73.70) |
| 08:10.17 | *** join/#asterisk-dev hehol (~hehol@2001:1438:1009:200:45d5:5451:8504:a718) |
| 08:12.46 | *** join/#asterisk-dev tzafrir (~tzafrir@local.xorcom.com) |
| 08:12.47 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o tzafrir] by ChanServ |
| 09:09.20 | *** join/#asterisk-dev sgimeno (~sgimeno@163.117.206.10) |
| 09:24.58 | *** join/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@41.51.124.99) |
| 09:25.22 | *** part/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@41.51.124.99) |
| 11:08.40 | *** join/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@197.169.11.137) |
| 11:09.14 | *** part/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@197.169.11.137) |
| 12:32.47 | *** join/#asterisk-dev oron_laptop (~oron_lapt@local.xorcom.com) |
| 12:32.48 | *** join/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@197.104.243.77) |
| 12:33.10 | *** part/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@197.104.243.77) |
| 13:00.45 | *** join/#asterisk-dev mjordan (~mjordan@nat/digium/x-vqqefxetgzvdywmy) |
| 13:00.45 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o mjordan] by ChanServ |
| 13:01.49 | *** join/#asterisk-dev Dovid (~Dovid@pbx1.arosavd.com) |
| 13:02.19 | Dovid | morning ev1. i know this is generic but how hard would it to have this restored to the way it was <= 1.8.x? https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-17998 |
| 13:08.21 | *** join/#asterisk-dev luckman212 (~irc@pool-108-41-8-176.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) |
| 13:17.40 | *** join/#asterisk-dev file (~file@asterisk/developer-and-muffin-lover/file) |
| 13:17.40 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o file] by ChanServ |
| 13:22.22 | *** join/#asterisk-dev anonymouz666 (~anonymouz@189.25.37.248) |
| 13:22.40 | luckman212 | may I post something related to a bounty on asterisk-users or does that always belong in asterisk-dev ? |
| 13:32.01 | Dovid | try the biz list. i just posted there for a patch 5 minutes ago |
| 13:34.47 | luckman212 | is it asterisk-biz ? |
| 13:35.15 | Dovid | try the biz list. maybe the dev list and also on the wiki there is a bounty page |
| 13:36.40 | luckman212 | I'm going to stick with the -dev list since this is a followup to a post originally posted there |
| 13:36.44 | luckman212 | thanks though |
| 13:39.19 | luckman212 | as an aside, why such a dramatic decline in activity on these asterisk mailing lists since '05 ? see: http://i.imgur.com/afiPn.png is there some other place people are going to talk about asterisk, or is the project just in decline? |
| 13:43.36 | pabelanger | *shrugs* why does it matter? |
| 13:45.08 | acidfoo | better spam filtering ? ;P |
| 14:05.23 | *** join/#asterisk-dev serafie (~erin@nat/digium/x-jslwlujjxrhwmogu) |
| 14:11.07 | luckman212 | pabelanger: just curious is all |
| 14:12.17 | luckman212 | doesn't matter I guess, actually the -dev list has held rather steady http://i.imgur.com/rnG7a.png |
| 14:13.19 | luckman212 | but this is asterisk-users http://i.imgur.com/9n2nT.png maybe people just dont use mailing lists anymore?? |
| 14:14.12 | pabelanger | new sources of information I would guess |
| 14:15.02 | luckman212 | true. I was only asking because I wasn't sure if there was a better venue for discussion |
| 14:15.39 | luckman212 | besides http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asterisk of course |
| 14:51.10 | *** join/#asterisk-dev zerohalo (~zerohalo@74.60.136.128) |
| 15:03.41 | *** join/#asterisk-dev putnopvut (~putnopvut@asterisk/master-of-queues/mmichelson) |
| 15:03.41 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o putnopvut] by ChanServ |
| 15:19.11 | *** join/#asterisk-dev seraphie (~erin@75.76.38.159) |
| 15:26.18 | *** join/#asterisk-dev leifmadsen (~Leif@asterisk/documenteur-extraordinaire/blitzrage) |
| 15:26.18 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o leifmadsen] by ChanServ |
| 15:39.13 | *** join/#asterisk-dev kpfleming (~kpfleming@asterisk/digium-director-of-software-tech/kpfleming) |
| 15:39.14 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o kpfleming] by ChanServ |
| 16:06.17 | *** join/#asterisk-dev elguero (~miguel323@2001:470:1f06:12c4::2) |
| 16:07.27 | *** join/#asterisk-dev tzafrir (~tzafrir@local.xorcom.com) |
| 16:07.27 | *** mode/#asterisk-dev [+o tzafrir] by ChanServ |
| 18:01.04 | *** join/#asterisk-dev anthm (~anthm@freeswitch/developer/anthm) |
| 19:26.25 | *** join/#asterisk-dev Dovid (~Dovid@static-173-63-105-18.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net) |
| 19:27.02 | Dovid | hi all. when asterisk does DEBUG[19212] and VERBOSE[19212] the 19212 is unique per call? |
| 19:28.50 | kpfleming | 'unique per call' doesn't make any sense. that value is associated with the call (it's a thread identifier), so all messages with that prefix are related to that call... until that call terminates, and the thread ID gets reused for another call at some random point in the future. |
| 19:33.14 | Dovid | kpfleming: Sorry. thats what I meant. I am using 10.0 and I am having a lot of issues were a BYE is sent but asterisk does not respond. I am nout sure if asterisk is not seeing it or if it is but not hanging up. I did a grep based on [19212] and i see multiple calls using the same idenifier |
| 19:33.18 | Dovid | or so it seems to me |
| 19:33.48 | kpfleming | it's certainly possible. i'm not really sure how closely that identifier is tied to channels/calls. |
| 19:34.47 | Dovid | kpfleming: if it is unique per call from begining to end wouldnt asterisk using it for multiple calls at once be a "bug" ? |
| 19:37.33 | kpfleming | 'unique per call' still doesn't make any sense. what you mean is 'uniquely identifies a call while that call exists'. if there was any sort of documentation that claimed that identifier in the messages to be such, sure, that might be considered a bug. i'm not aware of any such documentation, or any that even tells you the purpose of that identifier. |
| 19:39.38 | Dovid | sorry. what i am asking is can we assume (with out the docs) that the number is a unique identier for a call and only one call at a time can use that indeifier |
| 19:40.08 | kpfleming | no. without documentation stating such, that assumption could turn out to be quite faulty, and if you are relying on it, your system could break. |
| 19:40.09 | Dovid | i am having lots of issues with calls not hanging up and i found this by accident. which is why i am trying to see if there is a possible bug. who would konow |
| 19:40.19 | Dovid | know* if this is or isnt the case? |
| 19:40.50 | kpfleming | nobody is going to 'know'. anyone who was interested in finding out would have to investigate in the source code how that number is generated, and then continue researching from there. |
| 19:41.36 | Dovid | ok. |
| 19:41.49 | Dovid | i would think some one came up with that code to generate the number and i would ask them |
| 19:42.07 | kpfleming | sure... go back in time 10 or 11 years and you could probably find out who did it and ask them |
| 19:42.12 | Dovid | hehe |
| 19:42.36 | *** join/#asterisk-dev oron_laptop (~oron_lapt@line25-214.adsl.actcom.co.il) |
| 19:44.11 | Dovid | kpfleming: So to debug my issue with asterisk not getting the BYE how would i debug that? |
| 19:44.35 | kpfleming | basic steps... ensure that the packet arrived in chan_sip (using 'sip debug'), and take it from there |
| 19:45.34 | Dovid | kpfelming: I have sip debug. i was grepping the file based on the identifier. i need some other way to grep it |
| 19:47.49 | Qwell | Corydon76-home: is weakref expected to work on gcc 4.1.2? |
| 19:48.23 | Corydon76-home | Qwell: due to a bug in gcc 4.1.2, no |
| 19:48.44 | Qwell | As of the latest configure changes, chan_mgcp no longer builds by default. |
| 19:48.51 | Qwell | (on 4.1.2) |
| 19:49.25 | Corydon76-home | One of the RHEL releases shipped with that version, which is why we have a fix in menuselect's configure.ac that translates use -> depend for those systems |
| 19:49.49 | Qwell | Apparently res_pktccops being defaultenabled=no (why?) is hosing that up. |
| 19:51.11 | kpfleming | it should not be enabled by default, it's nasty |
| 19:51.17 | kpfleming | and chan_mgcp depends on it |
| 19:51.28 | kpfleming | so what you are seeing makes complete sense |
| 19:51.59 | Qwell | I guess it makes sense, but it's a change in behavior |
| 19:52.07 | kpfleming | yes, it is. |
| 19:52.18 | kpfleming | but the previous behavior was broken. |
| 19:52.47 | kpfleming | if you built chan_mgcp without res_pktccops before, using gcc 4.1.2, your chan_mgcp would not have been functional |
| 19:53.33 | Qwell | If that's the case, then I'll just remove chan_mgcp from the packages. |
| 19:53.54 | kpfleming | for any distro that only has gcc 4.1.2, i agree that's the best course of action |
| 19:54.33 | Corydon76-home | Or enable pktccops? |
| 19:54.46 | kpfleming | nope. by default it blasts traffic all over the network. |
| 19:54.47 | Qwell | well, if chan_mgcp doesn't work today, they aren't losing anything. |
| 19:54.55 | Corydon76-home | Ah, okay |
| 19:55.12 | kpfleming | and nobody cares to fix it, or make chan_mgcp not use it, because nobody really cares much about chan_mgcp :-) |
| 19:55.35 | Corydon76-home | Is there a sample config we can ship that makes it not flood the network? |
| 19:55.47 | kpfleming | unknown |
| 19:57.56 | kpfleming | when the problem was brought to russell's attention, he was unable to find any way to make it behave more sanely in a reasonable period of time |
| 19:58.07 | Corydon76-home | This may be a reason to move chan_mgcp (and res_pktccops) from extended to deprecated |
| 19:58.33 | Corydon76-home | If nobody wants to deal with the code... |
| 19:58.55 | Qwell | deprecation implies there's something else to use |
| 19:59.10 | Corydon76-home | There is. It's called the SIP protocol. |
| 20:00.17 | Corydon76-home | Oops. I mean, it's called Session Initiated Protocol. |
| 20:00.19 | Qwell | using that logic, there's a whole lot of stuff we could deprecate. |
| 20:00.27 | kpfleming | Initiation |
| 20:00.39 | Corydon76-home | Like chan_h323? |
| 20:00.44 | kpfleming | deprecation means 'we really dont think you should be using this any longer' |
| 20:01.12 | Corydon76-home | Do we have a separate 'unsupported' support level? |
| 20:01.54 | kpfleming | nope |
| 20:02.06 | kpfleming | they are one and the same as far as the current policy is concerned |
| 20:05.25 | kpfleming | Qwell: you are only having this problem on CentOS 4, right? CentOS 5.x should have a gcc newer than 4.1.2 |
| 20:05.39 | Qwell | kpfleming: no, that is 5 |
| 20:05.53 | kpfleming | ugh. lovely. |
| 20:08.50 | Corydon76-home | Yep, RHEL 5 is the only reason we chose to workaround this particular issue |
| 20:09.37 | Corydon76-home | and in case they fix it by fixing the bug in gcc in that release (even if they don't change the version number), it will work again at that point in time |
| 20:10.58 | kpfleming | well, that's pretty unlikely to happen at this point, especially since none of the packages they build rely on it. |
| 21:35.17 | *** join/#asterisk-dev philipp64|laptop (~chatzilla@mail.redfish-solutions.com) |
| 21:50.23 | *** join/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@41.51.190.97) |
| 21:50.44 | *** part/#asterisk-dev irroot (~gregory@41.51.190.97) |
| 21:59.27 | *** part/#asterisk-dev mjordan (~mjordan@nat/digium/x-vqqefxetgzvdywmy) |
| 22:23.48 | *** join/#asterisk-dev infobot (~infobot@rikers.org) |
| 22:23.48 | *** topic/#asterisk-dev is Asterisk Development Discussion -=- http://www.asterisk.org/developers -=- Tier 2 and 3.14159265 support is in #asterisk -=- Tier 4 support is in #2,000 |
