Hello Philip, Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 11:44:11 PM, you wrote:
PB> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:53:44AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> PB> [really, it should give the patches to openssl.org. but barring that, >> PB> it would be nice to see a patch set just posted somewhere, like >> PB> opensolaris.org] >> >> >> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/common/openssl/ >> >> ? PB> That's not "patches". That's "the source that sun uses". PB> The blastwave maintainers shouldnt have to deal with diffing out patches; PB> the sun folks should, since they have to do it for themselves anyway :-) Yep, you're right. >> Then Blastwave's OpenSSL is compilled without frame pointers which >> makes using DTrace harder... PB> Interesting. PB> This is not a deliberate thing. Apparently, it's just a side-effect of PB> using sun compilers with the -fast option. >> And I don't know who's fault it is - the point is that Blastwave is >> not always a best choice and some kind of competition won't hurt it. PB> Having user FEEDBACK, helps even more than having "competition". PB> Not once in the [mumble] number of years do I recall seeing a single user PB> reference to, "Hey, your openssl doesnt work well with dtrace because there PB> are no frame pointer refs compiled in" Yeah, I know - I wasn't reporting this to Blastwave as this was/is not that problem to me - just an observation when there was actually different problem (with dtrace ustack()). I don't know how big performance difference it could make - if it would be noticable then I would leave it the way it is now. The real problem however is library dependencies so we end up linking with library we didn't wanted. Then one couldn't easly rebuild (with different options, etc) the packages provided by Blastwave as no sources + patches + compile options were provided (unless it was really well hidden). Then with some really common in use libraries like OpenSSL I really would like to have it with standard Solaris/Open Solaris distribution rather then downloading it from somewhere outside (like Blastwave). In our case what we really want on our servers are OSS libraries, sometimes some utils, so we can link our applications with them. Then we need performance so it would be best if these were compiled for specified targed with optimization - I really don't care to have an ability to nfs mount OSS software to many clients with different Solaris version (however others might care). How does Blastwave fit into this picture? Quite well actually, but in many cases I would prefer CCD (up-to-date, depended only on Solaris libraries). Blastwave is great and I probably will still use it in a future, but I don't think that open sourcing CCD should be prohibited just because some people want Blastwave or nothing. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
