[Pacemaker] Pacemaker and RHEL/CENTOS 5.x compatibility ?

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Thu Dec 19 16:22:48 EST 2013

On 20 Dec 2013, at 1:36 am, Stephane Robin <SRobin at kivasystems.com> wrote:

> Hi, 
> This is a follow up on my previous post 'Trouble building Pacemaker from source on CentOS 5.10'
> Andrew: Thanks for your pointers.
> It turns out Pacemaker 1.1.10 needed more changes to build on CentOS 5.x.
> 	• revert of a81d222
> 	• g_timeout_add_seconds not available in libc in lib/services/services_linux.c
> 	• qb_to_cs_error conflicting type definition in include/crm_internal.h
> 	• Configure with --disable-fatal-warnings
> This brings to my question:
> Pacemaker 1.1.10 was already broken for this OS, and I'm assuming that 1.1.11 will diverge even further.
> What is the official position in regard to RHEL/CENTOS 5.x support & testing ?

There's no conscious effort to break RHEL5, its just not a focus for the developers.
So we rely on reports like yours to tell us when something breaks - and if anyone cares.

All the above seem pretty easily resolvable and we'll happily include them for 1.1.11 (hint, test the latest .11 beta to make sure there are no others :)

> Are there any other person that can not afford yet to move to RHEL 6 (for whatever reason) and are interested in keeping RHEL/CENTOS 5.x compatibility ?

If there are, they don't seem interested in upgrading.

Also, for what its worth, pacemaker is now supported on RHEL6.  Perhaps that adds incentive to update :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20131220/e09f28ba/attachment-0003.sig>

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list