Re: [Libvir] libvirt on OS X Leopard 10.5.1

"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; 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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHleg5Tg8lceyAqqQRAteeAJ4zU7nI9Y5RuwNRYMA/LBuzirs73gCaA76j 9CgOEgbhqxcvj5ihIytL0Zs= =vjz7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----