[corosync] corosync supported platforms / osx / illumos

Angus Salkeld 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:
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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
AIX: https://github.com/asalkeld/libqb/issues/33
OSX: https://github.com/asalkeld/libqb/pull/24
solaris: https://github.com/asalkeld/libqb/issues/37
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).

>> and
>> b) Is the dependency on libqb (which is licenced LPGL) mandatory/planned ?

Yip, required.

>
>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
possible.

>
>>
>> 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)

-Angus

>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> helmut
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at corosync.org
>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at corosync.org
>http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


More information about the discuss mailing list