[corosync] corosync supported platforms / osx / illumos
asalkeld at redhat.com
Mon Jun 4 05:26:24 GMT 2012
On 04/06/12 12:57 +1000, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Helmut Hartl <helmut.hartl at firmos.at> wrote:
>> we are currently evaluating different options for group communication
>> and HA features for our software.
>> The statements regarding pure opensource and BSD licence sound very
>> interresting to us, and also the list of supported systems.
>> While failing (quick try) to build corosync on OSX Lion 10.7.4
>> (libqb fails to compile for corosync 2.0.1, corosync 1.4.3 fails
>> with unknown linker options (osx has unfortunately
>> moved away from pure gcc)).
>libqb was building for me on OSX recently. Did you grab the very
>latest from git?
There seems to be interest in building libqb on lots of OS's
Igor Pashev's github (Illumos): https://github.com/ip1981/libqb/commits/master
So there are others interested in Illumos and solaris so I will
happiely accept patches for both, but I don't have access to
either (esp. solaris & AIX). So community help is needed here.
>> We also had no luck on Illumos/Openindiana 151a4, which would
>> be our main platform.
>> So it seems that sadly currently corosync is not working out of
>> the box for the systems we tried - But before we start to invest
>> time to try to fix things ourselves I would like to ask if
>> a) Supporting the above mentioned platforms is wanted,
>> so that patches are accepted ?
Very happiely for libqb (and I am sure for corosync).
>> b) Is the dependency on libqb (which is licenced LPGL) mandatory/planned ?
>I believe it is mandatory. As for the license, you'd have to talk to
>Angus. I don't know why he chose that one, maybe he's flexible.
Dual licencing is messy - I'de rather keep things simple if
>> The webpage suggested no dependencies at all, and I did not
>> find a quick answer.
>> The reason i ask is that our commercial software is going
>> to be released under a New BSD style licence too, some tools are
>> linked statically and this dependency would not fit in our plans.
How it this different to using glibc? What is wrong with statically
linking an lgpl2.1 library with a "new-BSD-licenced" application?
(they are compatible)
>> Thank you,
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at corosync.org
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at corosync.org
More information about the discuss