On 06/01/2012 12:20 PM, Helmut Hartl 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)). > > We also had no luck on Illumos/Openindiana 151a4, which would > be our main platform. > not familiar with this platform. We lead with the Linux platform, but would like other platforms to build/compile/work properly. > 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 ? > and Portability is the idea, and we accept any patches which improve portability. Keep in mind some platforms we can't test because we can't get freely (hpux and aix come to mind as recent people have tried running on those platforms). Note our model of development -> Must go into master first, then backported to 2.0.z, then backported to 1.4.z. Since 1.4.z is significantly different from 2.0.z you may need to port to both platforms. > b) Is the dependency on libqb (which is licenced LPGL) mandatory/planned ? mandatory dep on libqb for corosync 2.0.z, but it is linked dynamically. Although I'm not a lawyer, I'm uncertain where the problem is re the license... > The webpage suggested no dependencies at all, and I did not > find a quick answer. > corosync 1.4.3 has no dep on libqb (all the infrastructure is part of corosync). The 1.4.z version of corosync will be maintained for many years to come. If you don't want the lgpl license restrictions, you could always use this version.... but corosync 2.0.0 has a mandatory dep on libqb. We took the infrastructure that was implement in corosync 1.4.3 and reworked it into a separate project so it could be reused by pacemaker and other projects. So you wouldn't have a progression roadmap for your products (but then again, corosync 1.4.3 is in the field in tens of thousands of sites, so for that reason we will continue to maintain that for some time to come). corosync 2.0.0 adds many new features, and if your using cpg directly, the performance of 2.0.0 in terms of cpu utilization, thoughput, and latency is far superior to that of previous versions. > 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. > could still link libqb dynamically, unless that doesn't fit your distribution model. Regards -steve > 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
