[reSIProcate] Question concerning resiprocate-1.5

[Adam Roach]

The rutil tree is used by just about every other part of resip. It is 
well tested and stable.

/a

On 9/10/09 4:51 PM, neil.young wrote:
> May I additionally ask for you opinion about the state of the 1.5 
> rutil path? Is it stable? Or was it also part of the 2-3 days hack. If 
> not, I could concentrate on P2P...
>
> Regards
>
>
> Adam Roach schrieb:
>> The p2p code is based on a fairly early version of the RELOAD 
>> specification, and is incomplete. If you're interested in doing work 
>> to bring it in line with the latest specification and/or completing 
>> the missing components, you're on the right path.
>>
>> If you're trying to use it to build an application at this point in 
>> time, you're going to be frustrated.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> On 09/10/2009 02:30 PM, neil.young wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to build the p2p branch of resiprocate-1.5. I could 
>>> manage to successfully compile the files of the solution, but the 
>>> link of the testconsole failed due to missing libs, namely p2p.lib 
>>> and rutil.lib. After I added the libs, everything was fine.
>>>
>>> Known issue?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>>> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org  <mailto:resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org>
>>> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20090910/c8e49252/attachment.htm>