[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] libvirt on OS X Leopard 10.5.1



"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones redhat com> wrote:
...
> There are two alternatives I can think of:
>
> Probably the simplest is to compile the RPC bindings which are
> generated on Linux and supplied with libvirt in CVS and the tarball
> (ie. remote_protocol.[ch]).  We need to supply only the xdr_quad type

Hi Rich,

I like the idea of distributing the generated files.
Far less maintenance hassle that way.
Of course, that means we're saying developers (or anyone
running "make dist") have to use a sufficiently featureful system.
I think that is the only sane way to go.
It's the same philosophy that says you can turn up compiler-warning-
detection to the maximum and expect no warnings only on a relatively
modern and properly configured system.

If having people run distrib-building tools on inadequate
systems starts happening too often, we can add an autoconf
test to detect the losing tool(s) and warn them about it.

> and a handful of 64 bit functions.  I did the same thing for Windows
> but in that case built my own version of a mini-XDR library with some
> contributions from glibc.  What we could do is bundle this mini-XDR
> library with libvirt itself (or perhaps persuade gnulib to take it --
> Jim?).

Doesn't hurt to ask, but once something like that is being used
by two or more projects, it's even easier to justify.
However, I confess I don't know enough about the alternatives
you mention (below) to say if it's worth pursuing.

> Another, less appealing, is to look at some of the modern XDR library
> replacements.  Uli suggested one, but I've lost the link at the
> moment...  Of course that involves porting those libraries to Mac and
> Windows, which may be a load of effort in itself.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]