[Bug 499137] Review Request: sipwitch - SIP telephony server for secure phone systems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499137





--- Comment #13 from David Sugar <dyfet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2009-05-10 10:55:46 EDT ---
I actually wrote a patch (for upstream) to make openssl optional in exosip2 at
configure awhile back.  Yes, openssl licensing is...rather problematic.  And
nss has fips certification.  I am doing another upstream patch for exosip2
upstream related to terminating with reason, and maybe I will try to also
substitute nss in it as well then.  I also often hear "openssl" falls under the
"system library exception", a rather uncertain assertion though perhaps a bit
easier to say on BSD.

I re-wrote the init script in a generic way for the next upstream release, and
have used that as a patch for this one, hence the patch file is updated and
should solve these other issues.  I now understand how condrestart relates to
updates, and it makes a lot of sense to me.  In debian, I did it an uglier way
though achieving the same effect.

I also replaced $(INSTALL) sipwitch.py with $(INSTALL_DATA) in the patch and
that cleared the exec permission problem, since sipwitch.py generated by swig
has no #! and should not be marked execute.

I use 0660/0770 because I often create an "admin" group for the daemon, and
users of that group have to be able to modify config, write the control fifo,
etc.  Perhaps that process should occur automatically in pre/post scripts and
be "standardized"?

Anyway here is what I have now:

Updated Spec: http://www.gnutelephony.org/specs/sipwitch.spec
Updated SRPM: http://www.gnutelephony.org/specs/sipwitch-0.5.4-3.fc10.src.rpm
Updated Patch: http://www.gnutelephony.org/specs/sipwitch.patch

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]