On 04/06/12 12:57 +1000, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Helmut Hartl <helmut.hartl@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
