osp dependencies

[Klaus Darilion]

Hi!

Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?

regards
Klaus

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

[Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul]

On Jul 02, 2009 at 15:52, Klaus Darilion <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
> more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
> auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
> from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?

It's unlikely that the same version would work with both ser rr & auth
and k rr & auth (but I might be wrong).
To be on the safe side I think you should move it back (to modules_k and
modules_s) and make a note somewhere on the wiki (maybe a new page about
module merge effort) that merging failed only because dependencies on rr
and auth.
You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.

Andrei

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

[Jan Janak-2]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jul 02, 2009 at 15:52, Klaus Darilion <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
>> more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
>> auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
>> from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?
>
> It's unlikely that the same version would work with both ser rr & auth
> and k rr & auth (but I might be wrong).
> To be on the safe side I think you should move it back (to modules_k and
> modules_s) and make a note somewhere on the wiki (maybe a new page about
> module merge effort) that merging failed only because dependencies on rr
> and auth.
> You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.

This particular module heavily depends on the tm callbacks and thus we
should have only one version and that is the version which is works
with the tm module from ser. I don't know which version Klaus took,
but I would suggest to take a version which works with our current
version of tm and add missing features to it from the other
implementation (i.e. the rr and auth stuff which originally linked
with headers in modules_k).

As far as I can remember there were only minor differences between the
two versions, such as that the ser version did not use the rr api, or
something like that. But that should easy to fix.

  Jan.

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

[Klaus Darilion]

Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul schrieb:
> You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.

Hi Andrei!

This leads me to a git question. If I perform the revert, the git log
tells me:

  rename {modules => modules_k}/osp/Makefile (100%)
  rename {modules => modules_k}/osp/README (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/RELEASE-NOTES.txt (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/destination.c (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/destination.h (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/doc/Makefile (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/doc/osp.xml (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/doc/osp_admin.xml (100%)
  rename {modules => modules_k}/osp/doc/osp_devel.xml (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/etc/cacert_0.pem (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/etc/localcert.pem (100%)
...
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/usage.c (100%)
  copy {modules => modules_k}/osp/usage.h (100%)
  create mode 100644 modules_s/osp/Makefile
  create mode 100644 modules_s/osp/README
  rename {modules => modules_s}/osp/RELEASE-NOTES.txt (75%)
  rename {modules => modules_s}/osp/destination.c (70%)


e.g. the file modules/osp/RELEASE-NOTES.txt is first copied to
modules_k/osp/RELEASE-NOTES.txt and the renamed to
modules_s/osp/RELEASE-NOTES.txt.

That is of course wrong, but if I verify the result, it seems to be ok.

Is this just a strange log-message from git or is there something I have
to be aware?

thanks
Klaus

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

[Klaus Darilion]

I now have reverted the commit and leave it as it was.

regards
klaus

Jan Janak schrieb:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Jul 02, 2009 at 15:52, Klaus Darilion <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
>>> more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
>>> auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
>>> from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?
>> It's unlikely that the same version would work with both ser rr & auth
>> and k rr & auth (but I might be wrong).
>> To be on the safe side I think you should move it back (to modules_k and
>> modules_s) and make a note somewhere on the wiki (maybe a new page about
>> module merge effort) that merging failed only because dependencies on rr
>> and auth.
>> You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.
>
> This particular module heavily depends on the tm callbacks and thus we
> should have only one version and that is the version which is works
> with the tm module from ser. I don't know which version Klaus took,
> but I would suggest to take a version which works with our current
> version of tm and add missing features to it from the other
> implementation (i.e. the rr and auth stuff which originally linked
> with headers in modules_k).
>
> As far as I can remember there were only minor differences between the
> two versions, such as that the ser version did not use the rr api, or
> something like that. But that should easy to fix.
>
>   Jan.

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev

[Jan Janak-2]

That's a pity, I was hoping that you kick our ... and solve it before
we are done discussing it with Andrei :-).

  Jan.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Klaus
Darilion<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I now have reverted the commit and leave it as it was.
>
> regards
> klaus
>
> Jan Janak schrieb:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 02, 2009 at 15:52, Klaus Darilion <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Today I moved osp module into "modules". Now it does not compile any
>>>> more because it links against rr and auth module, but there is no rr
>>>> auth in "modules" yet. Should I just change it to include rr and auth
>>>> from "modules_k" or should I move it back to "modules_k" directory?
>>>
>>> It's unlikely that the same version would work with both ser rr & auth
>>> and k rr & auth (but I might be wrong).
>>> To be on the safe side I think you should move it back (to modules_k and
>>> modules_s) and make a note somewhere on the wiki (maybe a new page about
>>> module merge effort) that merging failed only because dependencies on rr
>>> and auth.
>>> You could use git revert <commit_hash> to undo your original commit.
>>
>> This particular module heavily depends on the tm callbacks and thus we
>> should have only one version and that is the version which is works
>> with the tm module from ser. I don't know which version Klaus took,
>> but I would suggest to take a version which works with our current
>> version of tm and add missing features to it from the other
>> implementation (i.e. the rr and auth stuff which originally linked
>> with headers in modules_k).
>>
>> As far as I can remember there were only minor differences between the
>> two versions, such as that the ser version did not use the rr api, or
>> something like that. But that should easy to fix.
>>
>>  Jan.
>

_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev