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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/1] [RFC] Parallels Server Bare Metal driver stub




On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 05:34:47 PM Daniel Veillard wrote:

[...]

> > +int psbmApiInit(struct psbm_driver *driver)

> > +{

> > + const char *libname = "libprl_sdk.so";

> > + void *handle = NULL;

> > + PRL_RESULT res;

>

> That I dislike, sorry this must not be dlopen'ed in at runtime,

> but checked in at configure time and properly linked in. Also

> means that proper dependancies and packaging have to be in place.

I exactly want to avoid dependencies.


Library can be used both remotely (for example, on Fedora host) and locally (on PSBM host). And if in the local case we can create special libvirt rpm with enabled PSBM support and integrate it to distribution, in remote case we force user to download not only Parallels SDK rpm (which will hardly be included to Fedora due to proprietary license), but also fixed libvirt package instead of already installed one. Is it preferable way from your point of view?


>

> > + handle = dlopen(libname, RTLD_LAZY);

> > + if (!handle) {

> > + psbmError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,

> > + _("Failed to load SDK library %s %s"), libname,

> > dlerror()); + return VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR;

> > + }

>

> So what is that SDK library, how is it distributed and what is the

> licencing for it ? As much as I like adding a driver, I would like to

> make sure the deployement is clean and there is no licencing issues.

>

> Any pointers ? All I found was

> http://www.parallels.com/ptn/download/sdk/

> and it's quite silent on code availability and Licence for the

> libraries.

It has a proprietary license and not open sourced now. Is it a problem?


>

> thanks in advance !

>

> Daniel


--

Thanks,

Dmitry.



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