similar to: Asterisk 1.8 - Security Fix Only Notice

Hello everyone! On December 15th, 2013, Asterisk 10 officially reached its End of Life [1]. As a Standard Release, Asterisk 10 received one year of bug fix support, followed by one year of security fix support. Users of Asterisk 10 should consider moving to Asterisk 11 at their earliest possible convenience. Asterisk 11 is a Long Term Support (LTS) Release, and will continue to receive bug fix

Hello everyone! On December 15th, 2013, Asterisk 10 officially reached its End of Life [1]. As a Standard Release, Asterisk 10 received one year of bug fix support, followed by one year of security fix support. Users of Asterisk 10 should consider moving to Asterisk 11 at their earliest possible convenience. Asterisk 11 is a Long Term Support (LTS) Release, and will continue to receive bug fix

Dear Asterisk community, Yesterday, Russell Bryant finally made up his mind and confirmed on the asterisk-dev mailing list that the next release of Asterisk will be 1.8, which will also be a Long Term Support (LTS) release. This also means that the 1.4 is now officially classed as a LTS release too. I feel that this is a very good solution for the whole Asterisk community and that we all will

Hey everyone! This is a friendly reminder that Asterisk 12 will be entering security fix only mode soon. As a Standard release of Asterisk, Asterisk 12 received one year of maintenance fixes, and will receive one year of security fixes. Asterisk 12 was first released on 2013-12-20 - the one year anniversary of which is just around the corner! After 2014-12-20, additional releases of Asterisk 12

Hello all. I was hoping someone out there might have some advice or suggestions regarding an upgrade from an archaic Asterisk version. I've been given the daunting task of upgrading a very old Asterisk-1.0.x install to a recent LTS version. I'll also need the install to have high-availability and failover support. From my research, it would appear that AsteriskNOW-3.0 might be my

i'm sure there's a simple answer to this -- i already understand that newer kernels than the ones shipped with the official release aren't officially supported but there is the elrepo kernel repository here: http://elrepo.org/linux/kernel/el7/x86_64/RPMS/ with a mixture of long-term (lt) and mainline (ml) kernels. i assume that the mainline kernels pretty closely track the latest

I have been a little quiet on the update front for the past few months, so I thought I would give a quick update as 2014 begins. Between increased responsibilities at work (pseudo-department chair) and some family health issues, work on [cran2deb4ubuntu](https://launchpad.net/~marutter/+archive/c2d4u) (c2d4u) slowed a bit in the last half of 2013. Here is the current state of

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > i'm sure there's a simple answer to this -- i already understand > that newer kernels than the ones shipped with the official release > aren't officially supported but there is the elrepo kernel repository > here: > > http://elrepo.org/linux/kernel/el7/x86_64/RPMS/

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Robert P. J. Day > <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > > > i'm sure there's a simple answer to this -- i already understand > > that newer kernels than the ones shipped with the official release > > aren't officially supported but there is the elrepo kernel repository

On 11/02/2017 09:29 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm looking into getting HP laptops for our department running CentOS 7. > > Last time I checked this was some five or so years ago, and when I look at > https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Laptops, nothing much seems to have happened > since. > > At that time, I had to give up CentOS on laptops, as both Wi-Fi and

Delving into the murky world of dates and times I found this: dates <- c("02/27/92", "02/27/92", "01/14/92", "02/28/92", "02/01/92") > times <- c("23:03:20", "22:29:56", "01:03:30", "18:21:03", "16:56:26") > x <- paste(dates, times) > z <- strptime(x, "%m/%d/%y

Hi Duncan, We currently check that every byte of a volatile is accessed the same number of times, and that this number doesn't change across optimization levels. If LLVM wants to make stronger guarantees that's great, I suspect this is not hard to all to check. Can you provide a list of types that should be atomic for the x86 target? For example would we expect a struct of size 4

On 23.07.2017 19:56, mad.scientist.at.large at tutanota.com wrote: > Can I ask where people are downloading samba from? I followed the instructions in the centos wiki but it's hard to tell what to do next on the German site. It was easy before but totally murky now (at least to this wetware). a link or two or clearer/more complete instructions would be greatly appreciated. Samaba comes

-- Luca Pradovera luca.pradovera at gmail.com Hello, sorry, I managed to lose the reply amidst the traffic. What we have here is our application server APP with leg A in AsyncAGI in an Adhearsion application, which after some magic dials leg B on the office PBX through a configured peer. Leg B then decides that user C knows more about the subject, and initiates a blind transfer to C?s phone

Hi Chandler, > So, I see where you're going here, but I'm curious -- why not just switch > ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP to have a second i1 value, and still be strong? Is this > *just* to support expanding? I wonder if that's really useful rather than > just lowering it directly on the various targets.... I tried that originally, but quickly got into murky waters with all the targets

It is curious to me that we had so much push back about moving host-compiler versions, yet so little on the cmake versions. In my opinion, we need to have a unified ‘dependency age’ policy. Cmake 3.13.4 was released about 18 months ago, so unless we’re willing to move our GCC version to 8.3 JUST as easily, this seems like a horrific double standard. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at

Can anyone explain to me the difference in zaptel.conf and zapata.conf? I'm trying to get a real clear understanding of them but its getting a little murky in places. I will be setting up a PBX running asterisk with 2 T100P cards. I will be bringing a 23 channel PRI into one card and connecting the other card to a Nortell 24 channel FXS channel bank. As I understand it zapata.conf is

What about helping the user: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83995 ? (can also improve the detection to point at the apt repo on Ubuntu if needed) -- Mehdi On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:21 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Please, no more waiting on CMake versions in distro LTS releases. We have > been *way* too conservative already, waiting this long.

On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Joe Armstrong wrote: > Compiles (via clang) to: > > ; ModuleID = 'test101.c' > target datalayout = > "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" > target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" > > define i32 @main() nounwind { > %1 =

We have recently digitized a set of points from some scanned engineering drawings (in the form of PDFs). The digitization resulted in x,y page coordinates for each point. The scans were not aligned perfectly so there is a small rotation, and furthermore each projection (e.g. the yz-plane) on the drawing has a different offset from the page origin to the projection origin. From the dimensions