Re: New options for freeswitch

["D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:06:42 -0400
Julio Merino <julio%meroh.net@localhost> wrote:
> > Why would you split it up?  Multiple options is not tricky.  I'm
> > just trying to get consensus on the names.
> 
> The reason are binary packages. Options are bad because they don't
> give a choice to the users of your package: they'll be forced to use
> whatever the bulk builder decided. By providing individual binary
> packages, you allow your users to decide which one to choose.

Sure but the defaults are probably fine for people using binaries.
However, I doubt that someone building a phone switch would have a
problem with building from source anyway.

> Now... if the main FreeSWITCH package has to depend on one of the
> various audio packages, then yes, this is not trivial because pkgsrc
> does not offer a "Provides" mechanism.

Well, it's not so much that it depends on it but it does need music to
provide full service.  The switch will work but music on hold will be
silent unless they build the music package or provide their own music.

> But I don't know anything about FreeSWITCH, so I cannot tell how hard
> or easy this is, or even if it makes sense. What other packages will
> form FreeSWITCH? Will there be a meta-package that just pulls in a

There will be a meta package that pulls in the music and sounds as well
as the pizza demo if that option is selected.

> variety of packages?  Will the software package depend on the audio
> package instead?

The meta package will.  The base package won't and the user is expected
to know what they are doing.  I expect that most people will simply
install the meta package and get the 8k and 16k music and sounds.  If
someone really thinks they need CD quality hold music they will have
that option.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>
http://www.NetBSD.org/ IM:darcy%Vex.Net@localhost