Hi everybody, The last i sent is a replacement as a whole for the original code sent by P. Griffiths. Sorry i forgot to mention that. The patches for cfg.y and cfg.lex are both in the same file (patch.core.cfg..files.diff) within the zip. I was lazy :) I resent it as a whole, and not as a diff, because i indented all the code with tabs, instead of spaces (so a diff would be bigger than just sending all the files). As for the CVS thing ... i agree with Juha. Either gets into the "official" cvs or we do something about it. The code i think is rather stable as it is (i only tested on my debian linux box, soon i will try on an ARM linux and i will report back on that too). For me, as long as it gets into a CVS, i don't care if it is mantained against HEAD or 0.9.0 (i use 0.9.0 .... so all my patches are against it). On a more philosophical level, i understand the "quietness" on iptel's side ... they have their own version, and make money on it. But the thing is that this free version is here to stay ... it is the "problem" of opensource. Another option would be for them to release their proprietary implementation if they feel that it is a better, more tested one. In any case, i think that this whole thing needs to be decided fast. Regards! Cesc Hi Cesc! Nice to have those fixes in a package. Is your cfg.y-patch to be applied *after* cfg.y.patch was applied or *instead* of cfg.y.patch? Or is your version a patched one which replaces the original implementation as a whole? In that case where's cfg.lex.patch? Alex Mack Cesc Santasusana schrieb: Unclassified _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers