25 Jun
2009
25 Jun
'09
5:27 a.m.
On Jun 24, 2009 at 22:08, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
I think you should have done that.
Andrei
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
i don't know about entire project. i just changed ser.cfg to
sip-router.cfg and what else it implied.
You single-handledly changed everything, including the binary name.
I don't care so much how a config file is called, but so far there is no
decision for the binary name so it should not be changed (I'll revert
it).
Even the config changes went a little bit too far, breaking all the
scripts (but at least you're taking care of that), for no good reason.
i asked
about renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is
ok.
so probably this means the entire project, or? IIRC I replied quite
quickly questioning such decision and suggesting to keep ser for now. I think such attitude is not going anywhere. What
is missing now is that
I would say "I am not going to be involved in anything having sip-router
hardwired". Sad to see this.
if you want to make it easy to use your own name, change Makefile system
so that no file names are hardwired. they simply my changing MAIN_NAME
you can get every file (config files, man pages, etc.) named whatever
way you like. The problem that is risen now is the type of
actions taken, while we
agreed that any changes to common framework have to be properly
discussed on devel list, radical changes were done without this rule. I
know that this particular issue is a matter of tastes and personal
preferences, that's why needs careful handling.
i didn't rename any k files or their contents. i only edited and
renamed ser to sip-router. i thought that jan as member or ser project
could give such an ok.