Re: [distcc] Status of distcc-zeroconf
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:03:04 +0100, Lennart Poettering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! What is the current status of distcc+zeroconf? I am really interested in this. I saw that there was a thread on this mailing list earlier this year, but there was no final conclusion as it seems. The apple code has not been merged, will it ever? (due to licensing issues, and code ugliness, is that right?) Those are the reasons; I can't say they will never be fixed. Also there was some question of whether it was better to use mDNS or some other discovery protocol. In case nobody else is currently working on this, I'd like to add support for this now, based on howl. OK. What are the advantages of howl compared to others? -- Martin __ distcc mailing listhttp://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
Re: [distcc] Status of distcc-zeroconf
On Thu, 25.11.04 15:10, Martin Pool ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What is the current status of distcc+zeroconf? I am really interested
in this. I saw that there was a thread on this mailing list earlier
this year, but there was no final conclusion as it seems. The apple
code has not been merged, will it ever? (due to licensing issues, and
code ugliness, is that right?)
Those are the reasons; I can't say they will never be fixed.
Also there was some question of whether it was better to use mDNS or
some other discovery protocol.
Support for mDNS/DNS-SD doesn't contradict support for SLP. You're not
required to make use of zeroconf based on DNS-SD if you don't want
to. I am planning to implement zeroconf support by adding a special
pseudo hostname like +zeroconf or something like this for
DISTCC_HOSTS. Set it and use zeroconf or don't set it and don't use
it. It's that easy. If someone should implement for SLP based zeroconf
stuff he might want to add another pseudo hostname, perhaps +slp or
something like that.
In case nobody else is currently working on this, I'd like to add
support for this now, based on howl.
OK. What are the advantages of howl compared to others?
It's the only implementation of mDNS/DNS-SD that is sufficently stable
and GPL-compatible. In addition it is the only implementation that is
currently available in Debian.
Lennart
--
name { Lennart Poettering } loc { Hamburg - Germany }
mail { mzft (at) 0pointer (dot) de } gpg { 1A015CC4 }
www { http://0pointer.de/lennart/ } icq# { 11060553 }
__
distcc mailing listhttp://distcc.samba.org/
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
Re: [distcc] Status of distcc-zeroconf
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:56:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering Support for mDNS/DNS-SD doesn't contradict support for SLP. You're not required to make use of zeroconf based on DNS-SD if you don't want to. I am planning to implement zeroconf support by adding a special pseudo hostname like +zeroconf or something like this for DISTCC_HOSTS. Set it and use zeroconf or don't set it and don't use it. It's that easy. If someone should implement for SLP based zeroconf stuff he might want to add another pseudo hostname, perhaps +slp or something like that. OK. What are the advantages of howl compared to others? It's the only implementation of mDNS/DNS-SD that is sufficently stable and GPL-compatible. In addition it is the only implementation that is currently available in Debian. OK, that all sounds good to me. -- Martin __ distcc mailing listhttp://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
