On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sa?l Ibarra <saghul at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm also all in favor for it! Though I've always felt that there are > still > > few stuffs to fix before we're ready for a binary package (we are talking > > about binary package, right?), like, a proper "make install", but I guess > if > > nobody starts this then we won't get anywhere soon. > > > > Can anyone list what needs to be done? Lets see what I can do. > > > > I modified the original makefile very slightly so that the deb package > coud be made, I'll post it when I have access, sorry :) Sure, the > makefile needs to be reworked, but I don't think it's a difficult task > :) > > That's good to know. Though I was thinking maybe Debian people need stricter rule for their distro. My other concern was (apart from make install), we are packaging few third party stuffs with pjsip (such as Speex, PA, iLBC, etc), and this may not be the most appropriate thing to do. I also have an idea to archive all the libs together into a single libpjxyx.a file so that it's easier to use (as opposed to now where we have 18 (!) separate libraries to work on). Not sure if this is a good idea though, what others think?. > And yes, I am talking about binnary package, my package actually > installs pjproject libraries and pjsua utility... is that right? > > Yeah, something like that. Or maybe we should package the libraries and applications separately? Or maybe even separate application packages for pjsua and the rest of samples/test utilities? Dunno. cheers Benny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20090406/baa24907/attachment.html>
