On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Cedric Blancher <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 May 2012 08:17, Lionel Cons <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11 May 2012 07:40, Sriram Narayanan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi everyone: >>> >>> There are two updates from me for everyone. >>> >>> a. More members for Belenix Development >>> Certain interested people have contacted Moinak and myself offlist and >>> have expressed an interest in having a standards compliant distro in >>> place. >>> >>> I had a telephonic conversation with Moinak about this last night (He >>> had just returned from a family trip to someplace and was inaccessible >>> for some days). Moinak has said that he too considers this a >>> worthwhile effort. >>> >>> I will not be forwarding the private mail thread to these discussion >>> lists since those discussions are private. However, I have requested >>> the participants in that thread to join belenix-dev and >>> belenix-discuss so that we can take the discussion ahead. >>> >>> b. Belenix build efforts >>> On an exciting note, I've made some progress in the roadmap in terms >>> of build pipelines. I'll showcase this next weekend (and see how to >>> make a video and host it on youtube). >>> Some months ago, I'd conducted a session at the BOSUG meet at >>> Thoughtworks on how we could aim for continuous integration and build >>> pipelines for ON. It does seem feasible, and if this is in place, >>> we'll be able to replace components as and when we want (e.g. replace >>> some existing userland components with those form ATT's AST or from >>> the Hierloom project - something that had come up on illumos-discuss). >> >> Sounds good, except the correct spelling for Hierloom is actually >> Heirloom :) and that I'd prefer to go with the AST toolchain first, >> they have a proven good relationship and support with ON. > > I agree with Lionel on that.
Thanks. I myself feel that we should have a separate thread on what POSIX compliance means to us, and how we intend to ascertain that we are POSIX compliant. > >> What are we doing about SPARC support? > > Yes, what about SPARC support. Do we have any decent T1/T2 machines > which could used as build machines? If: a) anyone would like to contribute a zone or two on a SPARC box (if not an entire SPARC) b) we have people who are interested in SPARC packages and are willing to test SPARC packages c) we have people who are interested in maintaining SPARC packages, then we can consider adding SPARC support too. I myself can contribute by helping integrate the SPARC zones into our overall build eco-system. > > Ced > -- > Cedric Blancher <[email protected]> > Institute Pasteur -- Belenix: www.belenix.org _______________________________________________ belenix-discuss mailing list http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
