Binary package install vs compiling

There is an open source project I am trying to get functioning with FreeSwitch.
During their own installation, they are using the binary packages.

Me, trying to learn stuff, I am trying to do the setup by compiling FreeSwitch from source.

I followed some advice on compiling from various sources. Including this part:

It compiles just fine, and runs, but I am running into an issue where mod Sofia is not loading and unsure why.

So, I am trying to do a comparison of the binary install vs. my compiled version. Looking at the FreeSwitch users on each, I am seeing a difference.

My compile using the above resource, home is located at /usr/local/freeswitch/
In the binary package home, I see home is located at /var/lib/freeswitch

Is what I did outdated, or I did something wrong?

Any tips/clues why mod Sofia is not loading?


Edit: I see mod sofia is loading, but no sip profiles are.

Hello @trent,
Thanks for your question. From the information provided, it doesnā€™t look like you have done anything incorrectly. The binary package is installing freewitch in a different location, which is not unusual (the freeswitch directory can be changed during the ./configuration step of the (compile) install using the --prefix= switch, allowing it to be in any location).

Since it looks like mod_sofia is being started, my guess is that there is an issue with one or more of the profiles. Can you confirm that there are xml files in the /usr/local/freeswitch/conf/sip_profiles directory?
If so, are you able to attach the fs_cli output that is being returned when trying to start one of the profiles manually (sofia profile <profile_name> start)? Providing a copy of one of the sip profiles configuration xml would also probably be helpful in troubleshooting.


1 Like

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Sorry for the delay.

It turns out the open source project is not using any xml files for SIp profiles, and instead using a database.

I will have to get with them, I guess.