Summary:	ASTERISK-07322: [patch] Zaptel-1.0.10 no longer builds with kernel 2.6.15
Reporter:	benjk (benjk)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2006-07-11 06:31:08	Date Closed:	2006-07-12 13:39:36
Priority:	Minor	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Core/General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) zaptel-1.0.10-fix-for-kernel-2.6.15.patch.txt
Description:	Due to changes in the kernel API as of kernel 2.6.15 zaptel-1.0.10 no longer builds. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** This issue has recently been fixed in zaptel.c version 1.2. However, people who use BRIstuff stable (0.2.0) will still be tied to zaptel 1.0.10 and therefore I have applied the 1.2 fixes to zaptel.c of 1.0.10. Patch file attached.
Comments:	By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-07-11 08:47:40 time to upgrade -- 1.4 is almost out of the door ;) If you don't have a disclaimer on file, please fax it to Digium and confirm with a note to the bug when done. Thanks By: benjk (benjk) 2006-07-11 09:16:41 You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not the one who maintains BRIstuff. As long as BRIstuff-stable uses 1.0.x people who use Junghanns BRI cards on production boxen are unlikely to upgrade. You already have a disclaimer for this fix on file because I copied the changes VERBATIM from the 1.2 branch here ... http://svn.digium.com/view/zaptel-old/branches/1.2/zaptel.c?rev=843&view=markup By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-07-11 09:24:45 oh, I see. I'm gonna go bark at Junghanns now... AFAIK, you still need to get a disclaimer on file for this patch to be considered even if you adopted a disclaimed patch. By: benjk (benjk) 2006-07-11 09:47:44 You may want to ask your lawyer and have him explain to you why a disclaimer is not only unnecessary but would actually require me to break the law in this case. The only rights I have to the fix that I copied from the 1.2 branch are those granted to me by the GPL license, which allows me to copy the fix and paste it elsewhere, but it doesn't allow me to assign it because this would imply that I am the legal owner, which I am not. I would be committing perjury. Of course, since this code is Digium's to begin with, Digium could assign the rights to me and then I would legally be able to assign them back. I fail to see the sense in such a transaction though. By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-07-11 09:54:56 sounds fair, it is up to the commiter to make a decision. By: benjk (benjk) 2006-07-11 10:00:24 Digium doesn't stand above the law and you cannot ask people to commit acts of perjury simply to satisfy your bureaucracy. I would suggest you take it up with kevin or whoever is in charge. By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2006-07-12 13:39:36 The 1.0 branch is no longer being maintained except for major security fixes.  This patch can just be included in the bristuff distribution if they still desire to use the 1.0 code.