Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
The amd64 issue you raise is an interesting one. Something we should care quite a bit about, actually. We already have computers with 4 GB of RAM being a common thing. With 8 GB and more, 32-bit will be more and more of a problem - and amd64 is the only really serious way forward. I don't know about OpenSolaris, does the 32-bit version handle 4GB of RAM like Linux does, using PAE or similar technices? Nevertheless, those kind of solutions will only be a kludge anyway and it only moves the limit some year forward (I think someone said 32 GB is the limit with PAE recently). There's not 32 bit vs 64 bit OpenSolaris; there is only one Solaris. By default, the system will run the biggest kernel which fits; 64 bit kernel is used for amd64 systems. But OpenSolaris comes with both the 32 bit userland and the 64 bit userland; you can use both binaries on the system. OpenSolaris does support PAE; but a 64 bit kernel gives all and more advantages, including for 32 bit binaries. Casper ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
Michael Casadevall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This poses an interesting question then. With this, we could, in theory dump the ON userland, and go pure GNU, more inline with the other Debian/Ubuntu ports. That being said, I still feel diversity is a strength, and is it still Solaris if we dump the userland (and with it, binary and script compability?) Michael Parts of the interfaces are in libc but other interfaces are defined in the kernel. You cannot expect that you can dump the Solari suserland completely as you need to use programs that understand the related kernel interfaces. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't be... On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
The kFreeBSD port has had a lot of considerable issues with porting software. Remember, we'd need to port the ON tools such as the ZFS admin tools to glibc. http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386 They also haven't been able to get things like the wifi tools for FreeBSD working. I'm not saying that adapting glibc is a bad thing, but we need to figure out if we really want to go down this path. Michael On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't be... On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
To me, this development is just yet another Debian architecture and sure, some in Debian community will like. It also connects to Nexenta in many ways - which is good for us. We can't stop such port from happening - so I think we should embrace it as a secondary lefty architecture. On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 11:37 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: The kFreeBSD port has had a lot of considerable issues with porting software. Remember, we'd need to port the ON tools such as the ZFS admin tools to glibc. http://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/kfreebsd-i386 They also haven't been able to get things like the wifi tools for FreeBSD working. I'm not saying that adapting glibc is a bad thing, but we need to figure out if we really want to go down this path. Michael On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. And in addition to autotools, such port complicates further ON merges which will unavoidably lead to higher rate of errors/bugs. But because GNU/kFreeBSD exists, I do not see why GNU/kOpenSolaris can't be... On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:27 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian's main issue is that parts of Sun's libc are not open (mostly libc_i18n; they require all bits to be open). Having seen the issues kFreeBSD has had with using glibc with their kernel, I'm not sure if its work having a ksolaris port since configure will no longer identify the platform as Solaris, so most autotools scripts will break. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjTqNQACgkQpblTBJ2i2pteBACdET5A0ycn3U+G3S2R+8mCN6vq 0oAAniom7MRTL3P4TR8H1PotiT+R+qSi =8cf5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, such port makes sense and solves some of the issues (mostly GNU libc portability) but unfortunately creates new issues, which I'm sure, could be worked out and soon we should have more or less working first ISO available with support for this new exciting architecture! What do you expect from this port? In glibc, features expected on Solaris are missing. I would expect that this port would rather create portabilitly problems than solving any issue. makes sense to use glibc. This would also solve the legal problem that Debian had with linking Sun's libc with dpkg [1]. glibc is licensed under LGPL with a linking exception, so linking CDDL code against the glibc is also legal. In keeping with past glibc ports (e.g. kFreeBSD, Debian is a license troll. There are two ways to deal with this kind of trolling: 1) Ignore it comppletely 2) find evidence that the claims from Debian are nonsense. Taking actions on the Debian trolling is definitely the wrong way. BTW: Sun lawyers knows that there is no problem with linking GPLd applications against CDDL libraries. The GPL does not forbid it (in fact the GPL does not say anything about it as this is something that happens outside the GPL work). Sun would not ship GNOME and /usr/gnu/* if Sun would not be _very_ certain that Debian is trolling. Sun is happily waiting for being sued by a copyright holder of a GPLd program shipped with OpenSolaris. _this_ is one way of implementing (2) above. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Michael Casadevall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The kFreeBSD port has had a lot of considerable issues with porting software. Remember, we'd need to port the ON tools such as the ZFS admin tools to glibc. I already have zfs and zpool binaries linked and working against glibc (see [0]). Most of the OpenSolaris-specific extensions are trivial wrappers around syscalls, so I've simply reimplemented them in my port. -- David [0] http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/on-glibc.tar.gz ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: [osol-discuss] GNU libc on OpenSolaris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't have a problem with two separate ports. Like for people who want Solaris based system for stability and ZFS, and a solaris based one. A nice and practical upshot of this is the possibility of a kopensolaris-amd64 port which has been a bit of an issue with the current ON based system. The only question is if we ever became an offical Ubuntu port, which one would/should be accepted upstream. If we're legitimentally going to set up a second port, then I'll install dak (not mini-dak), and configure it for this adventure (mini-dak is great for single ports, not so much on multiple ones in my experience). As a second benefit, its likely the base system will not require the same amount of work to get buildds working, so you can probably leverage the existing Debian autobuilder system, and get hardy built much faster than we can since we need to work on improving the ON base. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjUHccACgkQpblTBJ2i2psiEwCfRh5CVJD4XE9VxQ70f8xrz7Az lBwAnRdGRj2RhRskq4ElXCIIqdgAlARi =esqL -END PGP SIGNATURE- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Per Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not Solaris, but it is GNU/kOpenSolaris. :-) If I might state my opinion, I believe diversity is a strength and choice is a good thing. If some people want to go for Solaris libc, let them do so; likewise for those who prefer an even more GNU-styled userland (with GNU libc being the cornerstone). What we should note though is that Nexenta (CP2) is already much more GNU-like than Solaris has ever been, in my experience... Which is one the reasons I like Nexenta more than I've ever come to like Solaris, after working with a Solaris-based Perl web application for around one year. Of course, my background is much more GNU/Linux-based so I'm biased... Anyway, I think GNU Solaris should be able to umbrella both of these two branches. They can probably not be combined in the same distribution, because we are talking about such core pieces of the system that it would be weird having GNU libc installed when packages have been compiled against Sun's libc, and vice versa. Of course, we could have double packages available for each and every package - one compiled against GNU libc and one compiled against Sun libc. But that would really be a kind of weird operating system... It is much better (IMO) to let the branches be branches. They can share the same infrastructure; both of them can have their autobuilders (when they are ready) hosted on the same machine, but in different zones. And so forth. For the time being though, it might be best to hold some kind of referendum among the core developers (which I am not a part of myself) of GNU Solaris as to which of these branches that should be emphasized. It's not like we have 1000 developers just sitting around and waiting for more work to be done, so a bit of focus (with the clear allowance of letting people with different opinions do their own thing, within the same infrastructure) might be a good thing. Does this sound good? On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Casadevall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This poses an interesting question then. With this, we could, in theory dump the ON userland, and go pure GNU, more inline with the other Debian/Ubuntu ports. That being said, I still feel diversity is a strength, and is it still Solaris if we dump the userland (and with it, binary and script compability?) Michael -- Best regards, Per Lundberg ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
