I have the complete stack running on Solaris 11U7: - libqb 0.13.0 - corosync 2.0.1 - pacemaker 1.1.7 This week I will try to compile on OpenIndiana. In the meantime I forked libqb and pacemaker. My changes should be available during this week. Andreas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Angus Salkeld Gesendet: Montag, 4. Juni 2012 07:26 An: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: Re: corosync supported platforms / osx / illumos 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 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
