David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: >>>> If we are to say this conditional compilation "only works with trunk of >>>> openais up to a certain point such as version 0.84" then that certain >>>> point becomes a "branch point" which I really do not want. What I >>>> prefer is that trunk of gfs userland be munged to work with the new >>>> corosync dependency and once that has all stabilized create a new branch >>>> of userland to work with the corosync 1.0 infrastructure. The complete >>>> software suite then would be "stable3" + "corosync 1.X" + "trunk of >>>> openais ais services" for the checkpoint service. >>> So it sounds like the next stable release of openais will be in the new >>> form of corosync + openais? Will Fedora 9 have whitetank or the new >>> corosync+openais release? >>> >>> We definately need to do a release or two of cluster-2.y.z from STABLE2 >>> based on openais whitetank. Then, once a stable release of >>> corosync+openais exists, I see sense in either: >>> >>> 1. switching STABLE2 from whitetank to the corosync+openais release >>> 2. supporting both whitetank and corosync in STABLE2 somehow, perhaps >>> dropping whitetank support after a while >>> >>> 1 would make most sense if F9 has corosync, 2 would make most sense if F9 >>> has whitetank. >> Clearly STABLE2 is running on truck and what would be corosync+openais >> hopefully in not too long from now. >> >> Does it make sense to roll back to whitetank and back in such short time? >> Let's keep in mind that if we push out stable releases into distro with >> the stable2+whitetank combo, i assume we will need to keep supporting it >> for a while before turning stable2 to support corosync. >> >> Hence my general idea of just #ifdeffing openais support in stable2 to >> handle both whitetank and corosync at build time (no runtime detection) >> and let the users/distros decide what combo they prefer. >> >> If you look at it: >> >> whitetank does not change. stable2 support will only need roll back. >> >> trunk changes in openais. our master follows openais trunk. Commit the >> diff into stable2. It's going to be just a bit painful in the very >> beginning but at the end it's a matter of a cherry pick or almost. >
It shouldn't be /toooo/ bad. The main thing that keeps cman from compiling against whitetank is the lack of logsys. We don't need to backport logsys to whitetank, just provide a compatibility API for it. Given that most of that is log_printf() that's not going to be very arduous I hope. With luck (and I haven't check this in detail) I hope it can be isolated to the logging.[ch] files. Chrissie
