[Bug 718270] New: Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718270

Summary: Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling
                    protocol over E1 lines
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],
                    [e-mail]
    Classification: Fedora
      Story Points: ---

Spec URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/openr2.spec
SRPM URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/openr2-1.3.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description:

OpenR2 is a library that implements the MFC/R2 signaling over E1 lines
using DAHDI. The MF R2 tones required for the signaling are generated
by code borrowed from the LGPL library SpanDSP written by Steve
Underwood, the user has the option to provide a MF interface to use
his own MF R2 tone generation and detection so the library will use
them when needed, that's why this library does not depend directly on
spandsp, libteletone or DAHDI for tone generation and detection
(depends on DAHDI for CAS bits and general media transmission though)

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  2011-07-01 13:18:08 EDT ---
looks good, any reason to not use %{_sysconfdir} for /etc ?

will you build asterisk with openr2 support ?

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey C. Ollie  2011-07-01 13:25:54 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> looks good, any reason to not use %{_sysconfdir} for /etc ?

No, just an oversight.  I'll fix it up after I get back from lunch.
> will you build asterisk with openr2 support ?

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't bother :)  Are you able to do some actual testing?  I
don't have the appropriate DAHDI hardware and am in the wrong part of the world
anyway...

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

--- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  2011-07-01 14:37:43 EDT ---
we are in the wrong part of the world, because we still use E1 lines.

I don't have hardware to test too, I am poor, after everything ok we will send
a mail to mailling list's (moy, asterisk-br, etc...) and ask the people to try
it.

can you make rpmlint happy ?

[itamar@itamarssd openr2]$ rpmlint
/home/itamar/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/openr2-1.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
/home/itamar/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/openr2-devel-1.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
/home/itamar/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/openr2-debuginfo-1.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
openr2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spandsp -> spandex,
Span, span
openr2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libteletone -> limestone
openr2.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+
openr2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/openr2-1.3.1/doc/intro-openr2-es.alaw
openr2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary r2dtmf_detect
openr2-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+
openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+
openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/openr2/queue.h
openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/queue.c
openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/openr2/r2engine.h
openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/r2engine.c
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings.

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey C. Ollie  2011-07-01 15:13:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> we are in the wrong part of the world, because we still use E1 lines.
>
> I don't have hardware to test too, I am poor, after everything ok we will send
> a mail to mailling list's (moy, asterisk-br, etc...) and ask the people to try
> it.

I can understand.
> can you make rpmlint happy ?
> openr2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spandsp -> spandex,
> Span, span
> openr2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libteletone -> limestone

These are false positives, the original spelling is correct.
> openr2.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+
> openr2-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+
> openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2, LGPLv2+, GPLv2+

The files are an odd mixture of licenses, so I think that the license line is
correct, rpmlint's being too picky.
> openr2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/openr2-1.3.1/doc/intro-openr2-es.alaw

Another false positive, this is a binary sound file.
> openr2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary r2dtmf_detect

It'd be nice to have a manual page, but I really don't know enough to even
attempt to write one.
> openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/openr2/queue.h
> openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/queue.c
> openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/openr2/r2engine.h
> openr2-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/src/debug/openr2-1.3.1/src/r2engine.c

I'm not sure it's worth patching these files to have the correct address.

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway  2011-07-01 15:20:18 EDT ---
Don't use commas as separators in the License field, use "LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+
and GPLv2+"

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey C. Ollie  2011-07-01 16:06:01 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Don't use commas as separators in the License field, use "LGPLv2 and LGPLv2+
> and GPLv2+"

Good to know.

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=718270

--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey C. Ollie  2011-07-01 16:06:36 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/openr2.spec
SRPM URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/openr2-1.3.1-2.fc15.src.rpm

* Fri Jul  1 2011 Jeffrey Ollie  - 1.3.1-2
- Replace commas in license field with 'and's
- use _sysconfdir macro instead of hardcoded path

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718270

Mario Blättermann  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/ R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718270

--- Comment #8 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
(In reply to Jeffrey C. Ollie from comment #7)

are you still interested on this ?

[Bug 718270] Review Request: openr2 - MFC/ R2 telephony signaling protocol over E1 lines

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718270

Jeffrey C. Ollie  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX
        Last Closed|                            |2018-04-06 10:23:33

--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey C. Ollie  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jeffrey C. Ollie from comment #7)
>
> are you still interested on this ?

I am not.