[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> apparently, you don't understand what's good about > solaris and why people love it. I wish I could claim > that it was the vast variety of software available on > solaris because of which I love solaris. As for myself, I love Solaris because it's consistent, structured, high-perfomance, and easy to use. And it scales well. Solaris has been good to me all these years, even though I "flirted" with HP-UX a lot and had a "love affair" with IRIX. But Solaris has never let me down when push came to show and when times were bleak. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> The most common mistake that open-source packages > make is not > respecting the --libdir argument to autoconf's > configure. This makes > it a bit of a pain to put things in > /prefix/lib/$(ISA)/ and the same > thing with --bindir. How very true. It could be in part due to the complexity of autoconf. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc andpatch for OS people.
> Well, in that case it would probably end up either > somewhere in BluePrints program on Sun's site, or > somewhere on BigAdmin. But as far as I know, only Sun > employed engineers are allowed to write this kind of > documentation for the Sun BluePrints program. In the past, we've published Sun BluePrints which were written by people who do not work at Sun. However, the Sun BluePrints program was, er, changed last year, and the former infrastructure for peer review, editing, tech writing, and marketing is basically gone. We continue to produce some articles, but each is a labor of love. I would recommend BigAdmin or similar channels which have a streamlined process better suited for ad-hoc works, and of course getting the good ones into the regular docs is always a good thing[*] Perhaps there is an opportunity for something on the opensolaris.org site? [*] these docs tend to tell how-to. The Sun BluePrints pubs were intended to tell why, in the context of best practices. Also, Sun BluePrints pubs could have a develop-to-publish time on the order of a few months versus the traditionally long cycle time for manuals. -- richard This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > > This seems like a fine suggestion; I'd just make it > a bit more general > > to encompass all platform discussions at least on > x86, and either > > include SPARC as well or create a parallel SPARC > platform community. > > I'd prefer a platform-neutral device driver > community. Issues like > OBP aside, I don't see why a driver for x86 can't be > targetted for > SPARC and other platforms, and vice versa. > Is it nesscary for OBP to communicate to some like the Adaptec BIOS? ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Proposal of new community for Solaris device driver (x86, x64 & SPARC)
Yep, I believe the platform neutral device driver is the target of OpenSolaris. But to this end, we'd better kick off the work on the easily approched platforms. Please see the draft of the community below. I do know I miss lots of parts in the scope, please feel free to add your comments. Goal: Add more hardware support in OpenSolaris Scope: Device drivers on Solaris x86, x64 and SPARC, specifically, including the network (DLPI), disk (ATA, SATA, SCSI, RAID), USB, Video, Audio, Wireless drivers and etc. Roadmap: Phase I: - Collect documentation on development and testing drivers - Blog on the existing support drivers on HCL Phase II: - Discuss about wishlist of Solaris device drivers - Establish the channel w/ the IHVs who are happy to dance w/ OpenSolaris Phase III: (Dependency on Phase II) - Collaborate w/ IHV to integrate their drivers or - Develop the new device drivers w/ the device vendors support This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for O
Dan Mick wrote: Sunil wrote: 1) how do you determine that the package name is unique in all the world? names are given by the father of the package, and they are pretty unique. its his duty Sunil, there's an inherent race condition here; both parties wish to release SolDoom packages; neither sees the other on google and both release at the same time. One either needs to 1) pre-partition the name space (eg stock ticker symbol) or 2) setup a global registery. Before opensolaris.org existed, doing 2) was problematic. Once the world can do putbacks, a global file under source code control could serve as 2). - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Solaris Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 786-5335 MS UMPK17-301 http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > This seems like a fine suggestion; I'd just make it a bit more general > to encompass all platform discussions at least on x86, and either > include SPARC as well or create a parallel SPARC platform community. I'd prefer a platform-neutral device driver community. Issues like OBP aside, I don't see why a driver for x86 can't be targetted for SPARC and other platforms, and vice versa. -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver
+1. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for O
Sunil wrote: 1) how do you determine that the package name is unique in all the world? names are given by the father of the package, and they are pretty unique. its his duty OK, you don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll stop. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and
> > If you have some ideas on how SUN could better > present the > documentation, then feel free to send feedback to > your SUN sales > representative. I also encourage people to contact docs.sun.com directly. There is a "Send Comments" link on the docs.sun.com pages: http://docs.sfbay/app/docs/form/comments?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.eng%2Fapp%2Fdocs The comments are forwarded to the writer responsible for the documentation, and we read and respond to them. You can also contact writers through the OpenSolaris docs-discuss alias. Go to the Documentation Community under the Communities link and follow the instructions for contacting one of the writer sponsors. This is a forum not only for contributing comments about the documentation but also for those who would like to contribute documentation. Ginnie This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Proposal of new community for Solaris x86 device driver
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 06:45:20AM -0700, Chao-Feng Guo wrote: > Users are asking for the wishlist like Solaris 10 X86 3ware 9000 series RAID > controller driver. I do know more people are investigating some good > approaches to make the IHVs embrace the OpenSolaris. But it's a better way to > have a community we could have more engaged or interested guys listening to > the compliants, talking about the competitions and figuring out the way > ahead. > > To see the least, we could do the following in OpenSolaris: > - Wishlist, SATA controllers, projector, printer drivers > - Approaches to collaborate with the Vendors: advocate any available code, > projects to write the device driver w/ the vendors datasheet in the community > - Blogs on the current device driver in OpenSolaris, hopefully we could not > solve some problems trouble the customers This seems like a fine suggestion; I'd just make it a bit more general to encompass all platform discussions at least on x86, and either include SPARC as well or create a parallel SPARC platform community. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Ferdinand O. Tempel wrote: for Debian packages to work, you need to adopt the entire Debian way of thinking. Bells and whistles and all. But it'll be a fight against both the OpenSolaris community and What are the core differences WRT the "way Sun has traditionally done sfw and the companion CD"? A list or comparison would do quite a bit to move this discussion from "theory/grandstanding" to "a potential plan". The current sfw/ccd "architecture" is obviously not meeting all of our current needs, where "our" includes the community, the end users and even SMI itself. This discussion has pointed out several of these shortcomings: hard to keep up with the suppliers hard to produce a "linux like" build environment for other stuff hard to manage dependencies ...etc... Iff the "Debian Way" has enough positive points going for it and few enough detriments, it might be worthwhile to propose the adoption of a new way of doing things. -John ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Colorado OpenSolaris User Group
Ok, cool. I'll be opening a user group community on the web site so you can have a page if you'd like. Jim Lisa Week wrote: Hi, We are looking to start an OpenSolaris User Group in the Colorado Front Range area. More information will be sent out as the group forms, but right now we'd like to see who is interested. If you are interested, join the frosug (stands for Front Range OpenSolaris User Group) Google group by going to: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/frosug Thanks, Lisa ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Colorado OpenSolaris User Group
Hi, We are looking to start an OpenSolaris User Group in the Colorado Front Range area. More information will be sent out as the group forms, but right now we'd like to see who is interested. If you are interested, join the frosug (stands for Front Range OpenSolaris User Group) Google group by going to: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/frosug Thanks, Lisa ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 13:22, UNIX admin wrote: > Look past the sentences and read the fine print. Read the blogs of the Sun > executives. CDDL may not say it, but it is clear why Solaris has been > released to the public. It's a purely political move with the aim to sell > more Sun HW (which is fine by me, since it's good HW). It doesn't take a > rocket scientist, just little attention to detail. > Let's stop pretending that we're all gonna have some smores and sing > 'kumbayah'. Since you are neither a Sun executive nor a Sun employed Solaris engineer I don't believe you have the right to make any such assertions, you don't have all the facts and given that you don't show your name I can only assume you aren't an official spokes person for Sun. I believe I can hand on heart say for all of the Sun employed Solaris engineering that this is not a political move to sell more hardware it *is* about sharing and working as a community. From our view point if the open sourcing of Solaris happens to help hardware sales great, but it is really more about sharing Solaris and working as a wider team and (Open)Solaris adoption regardless of where the hardware was sourced from. If this was all about Sun hardware why would we be so excited about the community wanting to do a PPC port ? There are many great engineers, like Joerg and all of the blastware, sunfreeware etc etc teams that really do want to engage on a much more direct level with the Sun engineering teams and vice versa. This is the real reason we are doing open source so we can learn from each other and make progress together for a better future for Solaris. If you don't want to sit and have smores[1] with us and sing 'kumbayah' then maybe it is time for you to go and play troll at another camp ground. [1] For the non Americans (myself included) smores are melted chocolate and marshmallows stuck between crackers, often consumed on camping trips. Personally I can't stand the taste of them, I don't like gooey chocolate, but the concept is cool. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: new community for Chinese users
I am answering my own question. I have found the edu-discuss forum from the e-mail header, which, however, is not shown in the forum message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am very interested in this issue not necessarily because I was born a Chinese, but mainly because I am convinced that the multi-lingual, pragmatically open-sourced SOS-based system should have a great potential in the China market. A perfect win-win opportunity. Many schools in the US pay Microsoft a set fee of ~$50 US per student per year for using Windows software. Sun can probably work out a similar agreement wrt SOS with Chinese schools (not just universities). In doing this, Sun must try every effort to become not "the" SOS provider, but only one of the competing many. The China market is so huge (today the Central Bank of China voiced a concern that China's foreign reserve just went up another $100+ billion dollars in the first 6 months alone), becoming just one of the players will be a significant enough achievement. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: new community for Chinese users
Sorry. I meant [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "W. Wayne Liauh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:37 am Subject: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: new community for Chinese users > Might I > suggest that we continue the conversation there?> > > Where is "there"? > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> On 7/21/05, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Actually, SuSE's RPM update system uses special patch > RPMs that are > not the entire software subsystem over again. They were working on it. > Possibly because of the "Linux community" there is a > large set of free > software available for any Operating System community > to use. We have > them and many others to thank for the resources. > We're all in this > together, let's not take a divisionist attitude. This is not true. Before Linux, there was Solaris. And it was the main development platform for Freeware. The biggest projects, like for example the GIMP, ran and were developed on Solaris. This was years before anybody even heard of Linux. I still remember running the latest bleeding edge build of GIMP on Solaris 2.5.1. On SPARC, no less. > I'm sorry, but that's wrong. OpenSolaris was released > to "share", and > the terms of the license don't say anything about > what you're ranting > on. While I personally may not agree with the view of > taking the > Solaris kernel and marrying it to a completely GNU > userland, that > doesn't mean that it "wasn't released for that". It > was released for > whatever folks want to do with it. Look past the sentences and read the fine print. Read the blogs of the Sun executives. CDDL may not say it, but it is clear why Solaris has been released to the public. It's a purely political move with the aim to sell more Sun HW (which is fine by me, since it's good HW). It doesn't take a rocket scientist, just little attention to detail. Let's stop pretending that we're all gonna have some smores and sing 'kumbayah'. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> What you want to do is bring "software" on a system > where the only Solaris part is the kernel. That's > BUSTED. apparently, you don't understand what's good about solaris and why people love it. I wish I could claim that it was the vast variety of software available on solaris because of which I love solaris. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> As for SGI, they have their hands full with IRIX. If > you really want to have a real discussion of porting > packages to IRIX versus Solaris/OpenSolaris when > talking about SGI instead of "Linux" which is more of > a kernel versus a distribution like Debian. SGI ditched IRIX in favor of Linux on Itanium coupled with their own NUMA. It's not about porting packages to IRIX, it's about asking SGI to port their software subsystem found in IRIX, namely `inst` to OpenSolaris. Then the community's pains with packaging would stop. > Can these problems be solved? Yes. Teach people to > fish for themselves and they'll be fishing until all > the fish are gone. Meaning, teach people how to > properly port and package software to > Solaris/OpenSolaris with support from Sun and its > engineers/developers and we'll slowly get where > Debian > is today. Why are we trying to look ourselves up to Debian? In the world of Linux, Debian has been almost completely marginalized, namely in favor of SuSE which provides nothing more than eye candy, and RedHat dominating Linux's share of the corporate market. Nobody even considered Debian until recently, when it took a reorg and the creation of Ubuntu distro to bring the zombie Debian project back to life. The concept of `apt-get` has been quite well assimilated into Solaris, and what's more, it leveraged the infrastructure that was already in Solaris to achieve what Debian had to develop from scratch. What else does Debian have, besides a SW repository which won't run on Solaris, that Solaris could benefit from? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:41:58PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > So is it ok for me to name my packages libfoo, progname, etc or not? No. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On 7/21/05, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:25:39AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > > > > Is that still considered the "proper practice"? Would > > > I be considered > > > "evil" if I released packages without the prefixes? > > > > That question is better left for Sun employed engineers, but I write for > > myself: I wouldn't do it. > > Nor would I, but not because of unforeseen consequences. The > consequences are foreseeable: users will not know the origin of the > package, there is increased likelihood that your package's name will > conflict with someone else's (possibly unrelated) package, and you > will be violating an established, documented practice. > > > As a general rule of thumb: > > > > [I]anything that could have unforeseen consequences should be avoided at > > all costs, unless there is no other recourse.[/I] > > Any action can have unforeseen consequences; that's what unforeseen > means. Instead of living in mortal terror of any change, evaluate the > risks and benefits associated with the proposal. In this case, the > ability to use 3 or 4 additional characters in a package name seems > like a very small benefit against the above-described risks, > especially since you can already use about 28 characters anyway. So is it ok for me to name my packages libfoo, progname, etc or not? I'm confused ;) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > This only contains a rough description in prosa but no build system. > > For GPL'd software, it violates the GPL as the build scripts are > not available. We're tossing around some proposals for fixing[0] this as part of making both SFW and the companion CD available to developers. One of them is that source packages (SUNWfooS or SFWfooS) include the build infrastructure for the package; another is the simple fact that the gates containing that build infrastructure will be available. There is no firm plan or timetable for these changes yet, but we're aware that the source packages will have greater value if these changes are made. [0] I do not agree with your assertion that the current strategy involves license violations, and nothing herein should be taken as an admission or acknowledgement of any violation. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:25:39AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote: > > Is that still considered the "proper practice"? Would > > I be considered > > "evil" if I released packages without the prefixes? > > That question is better left for Sun employed engineers, but I write for > myself: I wouldn't do it. Nor would I, but not because of unforeseen consequences. The consequences are foreseeable: users will not know the origin of the package, there is increased likelihood that your package's name will conflict with someone else's (possibly unrelated) package, and you will be violating an established, documented practice. > As a general rule of thumb: > > [I]anything that could have unforeseen consequences should be avoided at all > costs, unless there is no other recourse.[/I] Any action can have unforeseen consequences; that's what unforeseen means. Instead of living in mortal terror of any change, evaluate the risks and benefits associated with the proposal. In this case, the ability to use 3 or 4 additional characters in a package name seems like a very small benefit against the above-described risks, especially since you can already use about 28 characters anyway. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
Ginnie,
I've forwarded a few parts of this thread to the writer for the
Application Packaging Developer's Guide. Once you've reviewed this
information, I'd like to see what we could do to get the information
into the relevant docs.
Another option is this information could be written up as a technical
article and posted on the Solaris Technical Articles and Tips page on
developers.sun.com
(http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/solaris/reference/techart/index.html).
Thanks,
David L.
Virginia Wray wrote:
Hi David -
I'm a tech writer at Sun. I'm going to review this information and get
back to you about adding this procedure to the docs.sun.com
documentation.
Thanks,
Ginnie
David J. Orman wrote:
That feedback was excellent, that was extremely helpful. I'm sure it
would help a lot of other people as well, maybe there would be a
documentation resource we could start? I like wikis and all, but I'd
be much more in favor of having something like sun's documentation.
Or maybe we could get Sun to add it to the official docs. :P
Cheers,
David
In this case, 'the clean way' would be:
a) create a dedicated directory in /export, for example
/export/scratch ("why should I use /export, and not some other
arbitrary mount point / directory?" would be a good way to 'step
back' and think about things. Perhaps a hint can be gleaned from the
documentation. "What is /export designed for?")
b) read and understand the "Application Packaging Developer's
Guide". Make some "test packages" with one or two files to learn how
it works.
c) get the software to compile.
d) try to optimize the compilation:
"Improving Code Layout Can Improve Application Performance" by
Darryl Grove at
http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/cc/articles/codelayout.html
is simply great stuff packed with tons of useful information.
e) time to package. Write a generic package template which can be
easily edited. Building could be automated and simplified with
`make`, which is an ingenious tool. Any time invested in learning to
use `make` is returned tenfold or even hundredfold. Otherwise, just
copy the "pkginfo" and other package templates and edit them
manually. This is probably the simplest thing to do at the beginning
while you're still learning.
Sooner or later you'll hit the `make install` part, which pollutes
the consistency of a system. How do you work around that? It turns
out Solaris already provides the facilities to do it. As it turns
out, we can trick `make install` with some clever and 'creative' use
of lofs(7FS), the loopback virtual FileSystem. (`man lofs` might do
good at this point.)
So, let's create our sandbox in which to install:
mkdir -p /export/scratch/opt/php-5.0/
/export/scratch/etc/opt/php-5.0/ /export/scratch/var/opt/php-5.0/
The above [I]directory structure[/I] assumes one has compiled the
software with the right prefixes, for example
./configure --prefix=/opt/php-5.0/ --confdir=/etc/opt/php-5.0/
--datadir=/export/php-5.0/ --logdir=/var/opt/php-5.0/ && make
Notice how we're trying to adhere to SVR4/POSIX/Sun mandate in
laying out our directory structure?
To be really clean, we should have done something along the lines of:
/opt/SUNWphp/5.0/
/etc/opt/SUNWphp/5.0/
/var/opt/SUNWphp/5.0/
/var/opt/run/SUNWphp/5.0/
/export/SUNWphp/5.0/
or we could have also done:
/opt/SUNW/sbin/
/opt/SUNW/bin/
/opt/SUNW/share/man/
/opt/SUNW/...
/var/opt/SUNW/...
/etc/opt/SUNW/...
Where "SUNW" would have been replaced by the "stock symbol of the
company". For example, "Blastwave" uses "csw" (although it should
really be "CSW").
Now that we have our directory structure, it's time for some magic:
mount -F lofs /export/scratch/opt /opt
mount -F lofs /export/scratch/var /var
mount -F lofs /export/scratch/etc /etc
make install
umount /export/scratch/opt
umount /export/scratch/var
umount /export/scratch/etc
Now look into /export/scratch/. `make` "magically" installed all
the files there. From this point on, it's a walk in the park to
package the software, and start testing the package...
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: new community for Chinese users
Where is "there"? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: new community for Chinese users
Hi folks,
Taking the opportunity to cross-post to the edu-discuss list. Might I
suggest that we continue the conversation there? Unless folks feel it
is broader than the edu community
T
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> those in Chinese universities. As China is a fastest growing market for Sun,
> there should be a lot of opportunites for Sun in general and Opensolaris in
> particular.>
>
> Fedora Core, arguably the most popular Linux distro, was started by a college
> student Warren Togami when he was a sophomore at University of Hawaii. I
> have been following RedHat/Fedora Core for quite a few years, and Fedora Core
> is a prime reason why Redhat can maintain its status as a standout among all
> the Linux distros. (As we all know, the great Billy Joy wrote BSD when he
> was a grad student at Berkeley.)
>
> All things considered, SOS (Solaris/OpenSolaris) provides a computing
> platform that may happen to be most uniquely suited for the huge Chinese
> market. But this message needs to be quickly and effectively promulgated.
> Chinese universities seem to be a perfect battle ground.
>
> We have quite a few clients in Taiwan, mostly in the high-tech area. I
> personally have been very diligent trying to interest them with Linux
> desktops, but nothing happened. Then suddenly, late last year, a major
> Taiwan company, CTS, China Television Station, one of the three major TV
> networks in Taiwan, decided to switch away from Microsoft Windows. But it
> did not choose one of the Linux distros; rather, it went with the JDS/Sunray
> combo.
>
> What attracted CTS to JDS probably has a lot to do with cost relative to
> Windows (& support relative to Linux) . But, IMHO, SOS can be particularly
> appealing to Chinese university students due to two interrelated factors: (1)
> Unlike Windows but similar to Linux, anyone can (supposedly and eventually)
> build, distribute, and sell an SOS-based system; (2) Unlike Linux but similar
> to Windows, SOS has a very resourceful creator/benefactor—most people are not
> aware that at one time Sun was indeed bigger than Microsoft.
>
> A delegation from China’s Ministry of Science and Technology visited us last
> year. They mentioned that if someone can develop a low-cost Linux-based
> system and charge, say, $10 US a year per person, in Shanghai alone this
> would come to in access of $100M per year. Substitute Linux with the more
> probable SOS, and that probably will make Sir Scott very happy. Freeloaders
> like myself will be very happy, too. :-)
>
> Hallucinations aside, SOS also has a strong advantage that I have not seen
> mentioned in this forum. In Windows, you need multiple computers to do
> multiple locales ("languages"). This is a royal pain in the 8th. Many Linux
> distros allow a user to log into various locales, but at least as far as the
> Chinese language is concerned, the JDS version of multilingual capabilitty is
> far more polished than those in Linux. But Linux (especially Fedora Core and
> Debian) is catching up very rapidly.
>
> Anyway, I am very interested in your proposal, please let us know how we can
> participate.
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
Thanks. I'll be asking for yours also if this is written up as a procedure. :) ginnie UNIX admin wrote: I'm a tech writer at Sun. I'm going to review this information and get back to you about adding this procedure to the docs.sun.com documentation. I'd be interested in any feedback and suggestions you could provide on improving the article. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: new community for Chinese users
Fedora Core, arguably the most popular Linux distro, was started by a college
student Warren Togami when he was a sophomore at University of Hawaii. I have
been following RedHat/Fedora Core for quite a few years, and Fedora Core is a
prime reason why Redhat can maintain its status as a standout among all the
Linux distros. (As we all know, the great Billy Joy wrote BSD when he was a
grad student at Berkeley.)
All things considered, SOS (Solaris/OpenSolaris) provides a computing platform
that may happen to be most uniquely suited for the huge Chinese market. But
this message needs to be quickly and effectively promulgated. Chinese
universities seem to be a perfect battle ground.
We have quite a few clients in Taiwan, mostly in the high-tech area. I
personally have been very diligent trying to interest them with Linux desktops,
but nothing happened. Then suddenly, late last year, a major Taiwan company,
CTS, China Television Station, one of the three major TV networks in Taiwan,
decided to switch away from Microsoft Windows. But it did not choose one of
the Linux distros; rather, it went with the JDS/Sunray combo.
What attracted CTS to JDS probably has a lot to do with cost relative to
Windows (& support relative to Linux) . But, IMHO, SOS can be particularly
appealing to Chinese university students due to two interrelated factors: (1)
Unlike Windows but similar to Linux, anyone can (supposedly and eventually)
build, distribute, and sell an SOS-based system; (2) Unlike Linux but similar
to Windows, SOS has a very resourceful creator/benefactor—most people are not
aware that at one time Sun was indeed bigger than Microsoft.
A delegation from China’s Ministry of Science and Technology visited us last
year. They mentioned that if someone can develop a low-cost Linux-based system
and charge, say, $10 US a year per person, in Shanghai alone this would come to
in access of $100M per year. Substitute Linux with the more probable SOS, and
that probably will make Sir Scott very happy. Freeloaders like myself will be
very happy, too. :-)
Hallucinations aside, SOS also has a strong advantage that I have not seen
mentioned in this forum. In Windows, you need multiple computers to do
multiple locales ("languages"). This is a royal pain in the 8th. Many Linux
distros allow a user to log into various locales, but at least as far as the
Chinese language is concerned, the JDS version of multilingual capabilitty is
far more polished than those in Linux. But Linux (especially Fedora Core and
Debian) is catching up very rapidly.
Anyway, I am very interested in your proposal, please let us know how we can
participate.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
Quote from docs.sun.com: Defining a Package Abbreviation (PKG) A package abbreviation is a short name for a package that is defined by the PKG parameter in the pkginfo file. A package abbreviation must have these characteristics: * The abbreviation must consist of alphanumeric characters. The first character cannot be a number. * The abbreviation cannot exceed 32 characters in length. * The abbreviation cannot be one of the reserved abbreviations: install, new, or all. Note – The first four characters should be unique to your company, such as your company's stock symbol. For example, packages built by Sun MicrosystemsTM all have “SUNW” as the first four characters of their package abbreviation. (http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-0406/6mg76std7?a=view) UNIX admin wrote: On 7/20/05, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Is that still considered the "proper practice"? Would I be considered "evil" if I released packages without the prefixes? That question is better left for Sun employed engineers, but I write for myself: I wouldn't do it. As a general rule of thumb: [I]anything that could have unforeseen consequences should be avoided at all costs, unless there is no other recourse.[/I] This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Shawn Walker wrote: On 7/21/05, Darren Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Open Solaris is not aimed at just system admins - it's being targeted at the desktop user, more so now than ever - so live with it, you are going to have to accept that some people simply don't like the way things are right now on Solaris and would like to have a desktop machine that doesn't constantly require you to bring up a terminal to make even the slightest change to the systems configuration. Sun Management Console (smc) does exist and a lot of system related things can be configured there without ever bringing up a terminal. I have tried using smc a couple of times (really!), but never managed to really achieve what I wanted with it. Either there some error message pops up, or some module/service does not get loaded, or it doesn't provide the functionality I need. So, I would always revert to good old CLI. As I said once before, Sun always manages to make a GUI for system administration that almost work. CLI consiracy? :-) Bye, Dragan -- Dragan Cvetkovic, To be or not to be is true. G. BooleNo it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:28 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 7/21/05, Darren Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Open Solaris is not aimed at just system admins - it's being targeted at the desktop user, more so now than ever - so live with it, you are going to have to accept that some people simply don't like the way things are right now on Solaris and would like to have a desktop machine that doesn't constantly require you to bring up a terminal to make even the slightest change to the systems configuration. Sun Management Console (smc) does exist and a lot of system related things can be configured there without ever bringing up a terminal. In addition, webmin is included with Solaris 10 by default and that's another option... And none of those powerful tools are in the menus of JDS by default. Not even when I login as root. I wonder why this kind of tools don't get more attention. So I would disagree that it "constantly require you to bring up a terminal to make even the slightest change to the systems configuration." Se the note about 'more attention' above. J^2 You're newer too old to rock'n'roll, if you're too young to die ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Don't expect things to work if you adopt to "the > e entire Debian way > > of thinking". > > > > As long as Debian compiles software on Linux-2.4 > 4 and expects the > > resulting binaries to work on Linux-2.2, the did > d not yet grok how to > > deal with evolvoing interfaces. > > We are speaking about the viability of > of Debian/OpenSolaris, we aren't > trying to search the weak points of Debian/Linux, > ux, isn't it? :-) > > We can start a new distribution and reinvent the > the wheel one more time > (which in my opinion doesn't make sense at all) or > or we can just make > some integration work in order to make some stable > ble and well known >distribution work with it: Debian and/or Gentoo. > You should submit this as an RFE. ---Bob This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On 7/21/05, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring > > ing a huge set of > > quality software greatly integrated to > > to OpenSolaris. > > What you want to do is bring "software" on a system where the only Solaris > part is the kernel. That's BUSTED. > No, it's simply a set of ideas you don't agree with. It may not fit with the Solaris philosophy, but it doesn't make it any less valid as an idea, experiment, or project. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On 7/21/05, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the exact same approach that Linux takes. The only way to patch a > software subsystem through the OS interfaces is to do `rpm -u` which goes and > [I]replaces the entire software subsystem[/I] in order to "update" it. > This is very much busted. For example, SuSE is most notorious for breaking > production systems in this way, especially when they do kernel updates with > YaST. Actually, SuSE's RPM update system uses special patch RPMs that are not the entire software subsystem over again. > We really don't want Linux "developers" on board; those guys are hackers that > are going to bust stuff by "improving" it. What we want are professional > developers picking (Open)Solaris as a free, better alternative to everything > else out there. > I would caution you against speaking for other people. I certainly don't mind if Linux "developers" join the community. The community is *open*, to all who care to participate regardless of where they came from. I don't have to necessarily agree with their views, but they're more than welcome to participate. So, please don't use "We". > Why should the Linux community benefit? What have they given to Solaris > except "it works on my Linux system, if it doesn't work for you, use Linux! > Everybody should just use Linux!" > Possibly because of the "Linux community" there is a large set of free software available for any Operating System community to use. We have them and many others to thank for the resources. We're all in this together, let's not take a divisionist attitude. > No, that was NOT the reason why Solaris has been released to the public! > Solaris was not released so that the Linux crowd could bastardize it into > another Linux distro, but to evolve further as Solaris! > I'm sorry, but that's wrong. OpenSolaris was released to "share", and the terms of the license don't say anything about what you're ranting on. While I personally may not agree with the view of taking the Solaris kernel and marrying it to a completely GNU userland, that doesn't mean that it "wasn't released for that". It was released for whatever folks want to do with it. We're all part of a bigger community, try to understand that and stop making East / West Berlin style speeches. Many of us maintain and develop software for multiple operating systems, of which Solaris is just one (even if it is perhaps our favourite one sometimes). -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On 7/21/05, Darren Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Open Solaris is not aimed at just system admins - it's being targeted at > the desktop user, more so now than ever - so live with it, you are going > to have to accept that some people simply don't like the way things are > right now on Solaris and would like to have a desktop machine that > doesn't constantly require you to bring up a terminal to make even the > slightest change to the systems configuration. Sun Management Console (smc) does exist and a lot of system related things can be configured there without ever bringing up a terminal. In addition, webmin is included with Solaris 10 by default and that's another option... So I would disagree that it "constantly require you to bring up a terminal to make even the slightest change to the systems configuration." -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On 7/21/05, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure I would have phrased it in those words (after all, part > > of a being in a community means being tactful and polite), but > > debian encompasses a lot of architectural policy that sfw/csw don't. > > To be fair, one of the reasons that they don't is that they are > > piggybacking on top of the already-defined architecture from > > Solaris. Since it already exists, SunFreeware and Blastwave didn't > > need to reinvent those particular wheels :-) > > > > Debian has done good things with setting up and maintaining a > > distinction between runtime -vs- compile time module/component > > configuration mechanisms, installation locations, etc. > > > [..] > > > > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes > > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. > > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort > > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that > > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. > >Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of >quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. > >As I said, Blastwave isn't even similar to this approach. It has >lot of problems: libraries duplication, zero system integration, >etc. > >Debian is a well integrated systems, without duplication of >software, with a great packaging system, 100% free, with loads of >ready to use software, hundreds and hundreds of active developers, >dozens of derived distributions, government implantation, etc.. It >makes Blastwave look like a simply work around. > >I hope OpenSolaris will work to create this new Debian architecture. >I'm sure, OpenSolaris users will love it. :-) Well, there are a few problems I see with this. First of all, there's been some question on Debian legal on whether or not the CDDL meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines, if it doesn't, then it's very likely they will have no interest in working with us or taking back our necessary changes to keep those packages working. Secondly, I think this would be better off as it's own project since there are many things under an "OpenSolaris" distribution that people would want to package that don't fit in with Debian's strict guidelines. While using the work they've already done or starting a new project based off their existing repository sounds ok, trying to actually work with Debian to create an "OpenSolaris" distribution seems a lost battle at best. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> Care to expand on that? I, and I'm sure others, would > very much welcome > the history lesson on what they've successfully done. > FWIW, I think we > should be doing this with Linux too, and many other > communities out > there - but you instantly want to dismiss them with > every reply. I did expand on that. I described in detail how `inst` works and how SGI solved the very thing you're gnawing on here. Apparently you didn't read it "dude". This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > >> It really makes sense to me: Linux has been the most advanced > >> Free Software choice. What I'm proposing is to make OpenSolaris > >> join that huge community. > >> > >> As long as we continue being apart, Debian will continue being > >> Linux centric, but we can change that joining them with > >> OpenSolaris. > > > > You should first check whether the goals of Debian are compatible > > with the goals of the OpenSolaris community. > > Just curiosity. What are those differences? It seems to be pretty > much the same thing for me. +1. While there is probably a stronger business-oriented-standards (POSIX/SUS/etc.) contingent here; and a stronger FSF-oriented contingent there, I think it's definitely fair to say the goals are pretty much the same thing. And IMO, that's mainly because -- contrary to conventional wisdom -- the large majority of both communities are UNIX/Linux realists not religious extremists. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 03:33, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 14:04, Chris Ricker wrote: > > > creating a mysql-4.1 pkg from scratch. Or what if you want the same > > > version that Sun shipped, but just need it compiled with different > > > options? That's trivial on Linux distros, not so trivial on Solaris > > > > Thats what the SUNWmysqlS package is for, it is intended to > > be almost equivalent to the source rpm. However rpm is both a build > > and package system the SVR4 package system isn't. > > I don't see anything in rpm that could not be handled via the pre and > postinstall scripts that are part of a SVR4 package. The way that rpm works is that it is used to drive make and cc and then assemble the .rpm file. It is designed to be able to run from a simple .spec file. I guess you could do this in pre/post install script for source packages, and interesting idea Joerg! > This only contains a rough description in prosa but no build system. > > For GPL'd software, it violates the GPL as the build scripts are > not available. I think you are talking about this text from GPLv2 "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." The scripts used to control complication are the configure scripts and makefiles that come with the original tar balls. Those are included, in addition we include the flags we passed to configure. I don't see anywhere where it says that the vendor shipping the binary executable must provide you with every single possible flag they passed to ./configure and every environment variable they set when running configure or make. The GPL also doesn't imply that the person provided with the source needs to be able to generate an exact duplicate of the binary, which is what I believe you are trying to do based on the previous times you have brought this up (a good thing to try and do though). I also believe that what Solaris does with the source pacakges is equivalent to what other distributions do with source rpms, but I could be wrong but I'm far from being an expert on how to use rpm to drive builds. I personally think you re stretching the intent of this paragraph and I personally don't believe we are violating the GPL but then neither of us is a lawyer. Note also that what was done for the source packages in Solaris is approved by SunLegal so some level of legal analysis was done for this. Note also that for the GNOME bits we do use rpm spec files to build and do ship the full build environment. -- Darren J Moffat ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: short of storage
Hi roland, Please post requests for help on the opensolaris-help forum. This is a common problem on unix-like OSes. Try looking through the following search results for help. http://www.google.com/search?q=root+partition+out+of+space cheers, brian This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] short of storage
On 07/21/05 17:02, roland wrote: The harddisk run out of storage for / How can i change the disk config to add more disk space for / without reinstall If you have additional usable slices elsewhere then a nice way of approaching this is via LiveUpgrade. You don't really upgrade but in copying the current "boot environment" to a new one you get to rechoose your slice sizing strategy, combine previously separated filesystems (eg / and /usr) etc. Gavin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: >> It really makes sense to me: Linux has been the most advanced >> Free Software choice. What I'm proposing is to make OpenSolaris >> join that huge community. >> >> As long as we continue being apart, Debian will continue being >> Linux centric, but we can change that joining them with >> OpenSolaris. > > You should first check whether the goals of Debian are compatible > with the goals of the OpenSolaris community. Just curiosity. What are those differences? It seems to be pretty much the same thing for me. > To me, OpenSolaris is a more advanced software choice and I don't > like to miss things in case I am forced to follow the Linux way by > enforcing Debian rules on Solaris. That is wrong. Debian is using Linux just because it has been the most advanced choice from long time ago. Debian is not Linux dependent in any way. > Debian people have the freedom to create a Debian/Solaris if they > like. I don't know if they will have enough motivation to do it. I strongly think we should kick it off. We are trying to generate a user base for OpenSolaris, so a effort like this makes sense to me. > I believe that we should first define your needs and based thereof > define our rules for OpenSolaris. Profiting from from work made by > Debian people does not mean that we need to copy their rules. We > would first need to find a way to discuss important issues for > OpenSolaris such as: I haven't proposed to adopt their rules, but start a new branch in their project. OpenSolaris will continue working in his way, as well as Debian will do the same, the only difference is that there will be a new Debian/OpenSolaris architecture which will provide the OpenSolaris software with the Debian rules. > There are many more issues. If you blindly follow the Debian rules, > you would immediately lose binary compatibility. Is that what you > like to see? I'm not blind, I'm just asking to do one more step. Of course there will be lot of issues to fix. I know. But it will be more difficult it we don't start working on it. If Debian/OpenSolaris loses the compatibility, it is just a Debian/OpenSolaris problem. If the compatibility is that important some people, you can be sure nobody will use it. Anyway, as long as the source code comes from OpenSolaris the compatibility should come from there. -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS pe
On 7/20/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > now that 8 character limit is not there, what stops us from having some > meaningful unique names for packages, which are really unique across > csw/sunw, so in future I install just one copy of a package and csw doesn't > go around downloading and installing it but just checks if it meets the > minimal requirements. The name is not the only problem. Programs built for /opt/csw expect their libraries to be in /opt/csw/lib. The community will be working towards ways of solving this issue, but in the meantime, it's just not that simple. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] short of storage
The harddisk run out of storage for / How can i change the disk config to add more disk space for / without reinstall I am using solaris x86 10 Regards This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, UNIX admin wrote: > Eric Boutilier wrote: > > e) Time to package. Check out the make methodologies of the > > existing proven Solaris ports projects such as as Blastwave, JDS, > > OpenPKG, Pkgsrc, and SPS. If you like any of them, em, use their > > procedure for building your makefile and patches and contribute the > > result back. > > -- > > Out of curiosity, did you work with any of these alternative packaging > systems in production? > ... In production? No. In-depth? Yes, with pkgsrc. In fact, in case anyone's interested, I kept a journal of my experience here: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier?entry=unix_from_scratch_table_of But if you really do want to find people with production experience in any of these though, you definitely don't have to look far. Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
--- Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > > Yes, of course it would have been better! > > We have clearly identified an area where there > things could improve, > > but that's not the main problem. > > > > The main problem is that people who converted are > trying to push "what > > they're used to" from Linux, thereby reinventing > hot water. > > Bullshit dude - those people are trying to figure > out what works well > for Linux, and trying to identify the gaps on a > Solaris side. There's no > pushing going on, but a lot of good, open discussion > and I do believe > that we need to completely discuss the merits of > each proposal rather > than instantly dismissing them. You're as much in > the peanut gallery as > they are. > > > I'm pretty certain that nobody here will believe > me, but we keep > > coming back to this: > > > > SGI already has this whole mess not only sorted > out, but PEGGED and > > NAILED. We should talk to them. > > They've contributed a lot to Linux, they might be > willing to > > contribute to OpenSolaris. > > Care to expand on that? I, and I'm sure others, > would very much welcome > the history lesson on what they've successfully > done. FWIW, I think we > should be doing this with Linux too, and many other > communities out > there - but you instantly want to dismiss them with > every reply. > > > And I'd be glad to contribute, that's not even a > question in my mind. > > But first we have to sort out all this confusion > and quiet down the > > noise coming from the Linux-PC gallery. They just > want a revolution, > > but what they don't realize is that revolution is > not needed; [I]it's > > all there already[/I], and what some engineer > spent months and years > > working on is just fine, and [I]does not need to > be reinvented[/I]. > > Again. And again. And again. > > Okay - so it's going to become very clear to you in > the days to come, > that those who contribute positively get to define > the direction. It's > the simple open source principle. Those who talk, > don't. > > FWIW, I'd very much encourage you to have a good > read of the draft > governance model - > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1268&tstart=0 > > > Glynn Well 'There are currently 13239 ports in the FreeBSD Ports Collection.' As for SGI, they have their hands full with IRIX. If you really want to have a real discussion of porting packages to IRIX versus Solaris/OpenSolaris when talking about SGI instead of "Linux" which is more of a kernel versus a distribution like Debian. Debian has had many years top build its library of software and not all of that software is considered "STABLE" when you look beneath the sheets. I didn't say didn't work. As far as the parallel set of libraries, this happens on MS Windows if you don't overwrite the system libraries. Even if you do overwrite a system library, something else (another app) may break in the process. It is all a part of systems integration. Something like Blastwave is its own developer build environment - which is why I said it doesn't compare fairly to Sunfreeware (only in relation to the Companion CD). No one stops anyone from either using any resource out there to developing and use software - that is up to the user or developer. Everyone has their own way of supporting their packages. Yes, you may not like it but this comes from years of neglect to port software libraries needed by advanced Solaris developers - and many other reasons. Can these problems be solved? Yes. Teach people to fish for themselves and they'll be fishing until all the fish are gone. Meaning, teach people how to properly port and package software to Solaris/OpenSolaris with support from Sun and its engineers/developers and we'll slowly get where Debian is today. You can either "sit" or get off the pot as we say. The great thing about discussion is to bring up what is wrong so hopefully someone will care enough to try to fix an issue or help you fix the problem. May save a marriage or two. SGI, Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Mandriva, and other companies have all had their growing pains - don't let those OpenGL screensavers fool you Ken Mays @ EarthLink, Inc. Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> > and your sanity as well because it will duplicate > > many of packages already part of /usr or /usr/sfw, > > under /opt/csw. > > > > I might add that this is after the fact that it > uses > > the same backend as pkgadd. > is really asking for trouble. I'm writing this from > my own experience. I installed some stuff from the > Companion CD, and some from Blastwave. Then as I > started getting deeper and deeper into compiling > software, it started being a bigger and bigger > nightmare. > Blastwave only accounts for its own packages, and if > you have a piece of SW already installed from Sun > Companion CD, it won't pick it up (again, SGI has > this PEGGED with `inst`). What's even worse, when > compiling with libraries from both, stuff tends to > break very often. And it breaks in a really nasty > way. > > After experiencing all this mess, I had to make a > judgement call. Either I stick with the Sun Companion > CD, which guarantees stability and good integration, > but is too old for compiling most code, or I simply > install a controlled set of Blastwave packages and > link with those. > > I decided to go with the latter, and for the most > part, it works. The trouble comes when I compile > against a Blastwave package that isn't properly > integrated. Then, I'm completely on my own. Not only > do I have to compile the target SW, but I also have > to compile its dependencies and make sure those > dependencies are correctly compiled against > Blastwave. And if I run into incorrectly integrated > Blastwave package at this point, I have to recurse > further, and compile some more. However, it's the you have conveyed in detail what I wanted to say, and very nicely. thank you. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for O
> 1) how do you determine that the package name is > unique in all the world? names are given by the father of the package, and they are pretty unique. its his duty to give it a unique name. think about it, if you were writing a new db, would you name it mysql or oracle? if he fails, then the release process has to handle the uniqueness. e.g. gentoo uses package category and package name. Most of the time the package name is unique but when it isn't, you see two packages with the same name but in two different categories. From my experience, I haven't seen many of those cases (in fact two collisions: aterm and readline). > > 2) what you're describing is a way to tell that "a > set of required interfaces" > is present, which is really a different query than "a > named package". yes, they are different. And I addressed both. If the name of the package was in fact unique (not prefixed by the stock ticker), pkginfo will give you one hit for 'mysql' under installed packages. with stock ticker business and cryptic 8 char names, you don't even know what to query for. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Hey, > Yes, of course it would have been better! > We have clearly identified an area where there things could improve, > but that's not the main problem. > > The main problem is that people who converted are trying to push "what > they're used to" from Linux, thereby reinventing hot water. Bullshit dude - those people are trying to figure out what works well for Linux, and trying to identify the gaps on a Solaris side. There's no pushing going on, but a lot of good, open discussion and I do believe that we need to completely discuss the merits of each proposal rather than instantly dismissing them. You're as much in the peanut gallery as they are. > I'm pretty certain that nobody here will believe me, but we keep > coming back to this: > > SGI already has this whole mess not only sorted out, but PEGGED and > NAILED. We should talk to them. > They've contributed a lot to Linux, they might be willing to > contribute to OpenSolaris. Care to expand on that? I, and I'm sure others, would very much welcome the history lesson on what they've successfully done. FWIW, I think we should be doing this with Linux too, and many other communities out there - but you instantly want to dismiss them with every reply. > And I'd be glad to contribute, that's not even a question in my mind. > But first we have to sort out all this confusion and quiet down the > noise coming from the Linux-PC gallery. They just want a revolution, > but what they don't realize is that revolution is not needed; [I]it's > all there already[/I], and what some engineer spent months and years > working on is just fine, and [I]does not need to be reinvented[/I]. > Again. And again. And again. Okay - so it's going to become very clear to you in the days to come, that those who contribute positively get to define the direction. It's the simple open source principle. Those who talk, don't. FWIW, I'd very much encourage you to have a good read of the draft governance model - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=1268&tstart=0 Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: >> > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes >> > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. >> > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort >> > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that >> > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. >> >> Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of >> quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. > > Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux > will even compile on Solaris? Experience? I mean, the most important Free Software programs are working in OpenSolaris, this a fact: GNOME, KDE, almost of the GNU programs, Mozilla, etc. Did you compile them yourself? . or do you just asume that it was simple to compile them because you did see the binaries made by other people? I recently built vanilla GNOME 2.10+apps on Solaris 10 and these things do require some effort to get them to compile. Most of the troubles require fixing the configure scripts and/or Makefiles. But in some cases source code fixes are required. I'd say roughly 50% of the packages required some tweaking. But these are not huge issues and once they are overcome, the results are quite good. Regards, Moinak. Jörg ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: > Don't expect things to work if you adopt to "the entire Debian way > of thinking". > > As long as Debian compiles software on Linux-2.4 and expects the > resulting binaries to work on Linux-2.2, the did not yet grok how to > deal with evolvoing interfaces. We are speaking about the viability of Debian/OpenSolaris, we aren't trying to search the weak points of Debian/Linux, isn't it? :-) We can start a new distribution and reinvent the wheel one more time (which in my opinion doesn't make sense at all) or we can just make some integration work in order to make some stable and well known distribution work with it: Debian and/or Gentoo. -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > >> > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes > >> > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. > >> > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort > >> > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that > >> > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. > >> > >> Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of > >> quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. > > > > Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux > > will even compile on Solaris? > >Experience? I mean, the most important Free Software programs are >working in OpenSolaris, this a fact: GNOME, KDE, almost of the GNU >programs, Mozilla, etc. Did you compile them yourself? . or do you just asume that it was simple to compile them because you did see the binaries made by other people? 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It really makes sense to me: Linux has been the most advanced Free >Software choice. What I'm proposing is to make OpenSolaris join >that huge community. > >As long as we continue being apart, Debian will continue being Linux >centric, but we can change that joining them with OpenSolaris. You should first check whether the goals of Debian are compatible with the goals of the OpenSolaris community. To me, OpenSolaris is a more advanced software choice and I don't like to miss things in case I am forced to follow the Linux way by enforcing Debian rules on Solaris. Debian people have the freedom to create a Debian/Solaris if they like. I believe that we should first define your needs and based thereof define our rules for OpenSolaris. Profiting from from work made by Debian people does not mean that we need to copy their rules. We would first need to find a way to discuss important issues for OpenSolaris such as: - file system hierarchy standards - how to share commonlibraries - how to maintain binary compatibility between Sun Solaris and OpenSolaris based distros like SchilliX - how to deal with software on Sun Solaris that is not redistributable . There are many more issues. If you blindly follow the Debian rules, you would immediately lose binary compatibility. Is that what you like to see? 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> It really makes sense to me: Linux has been the > the most advanced Free > Software choice. What I'm proposing is to make > ake OpenSolaris join >that huge community. This is incorrect. Linux has actually always trailed behind in development. And now that Solaris is free, it is most certainly not the case that Linux is the most advanced Free Software choice, simply because Solaris, like any other enterprise UNIX is light years away on a different level than Linux. You are forgetting that Solaris is now the most advanced operating environment on the planet. > As long as we continue being apart, Debian will > ill continue being Linux > centric, but we can change that joining them with > ith OpenSolaris. Good! And hopefully Linux stays far away from Solaris. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring > ing a huge set of > quality software greatly integrated to > to OpenSolaris. What you want to do is bring "software" on a system where the only Solaris part is the kernel. That's BUSTED. > I hope OpenSolaris will work to create this new > new Debian architecture. >I'm sure, OpenSolaris users will love it. :-) I believe you couldn't be more wrong. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
"Ferdinand O. Tempel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Don't expect things to work if you adopt to "the entire Debian way of > >thinking". > > Actually, I do. I don't care much about what the debian project "thinks" or > "expects", and I doubt it's what you claim as: > > "As long as Debian compiles software on Linux-2.4 and > expects the resulting binaries to work on Linux-2.2, > the did not yet grok how to deal with evolvoing > interfaces" > > I've been using Debian for a while, and I have never really encountered > issues with kernels. Besides, it's besides, the point. The whole thing would > not built against a Linux kernel but against Opensolaris. Entirely different > beasts, but given that most common software which lives in debian builds and > works fine for most other "free" unix likes (*BSD, HURD, Linux) and indeed on > a whole slew of non free (Solaris (well, it used to be non free), Irix, HPUX, > AIX) unices, and heck, even non unices at all (Windows, OpenVMS), I doubt > it's really that much of a problem. Besides, kernel dependent components need > to replaced *anyway*, so I fail to see how your point actually has any > relevance at all. So you just had good luck. I am only aware of the problem because I got "bug reports" against cdrecord. I did explain the Debian people how to correctly deal with this problem to no avail. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Theo Schlossnagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of > >>quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. > >> > > > > Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux > > will even compile on Solaris? > > Because the vast majority of those packages have been run on a large > variety of OSes including Solaris. I'm not advocating an particular > packaging system (aside from Sun's), but the software products > themselves will have a very high "out-of-the-box" build success rate. My observation is that aprox. 50% of all sources need manual action in order to make them compile on OpenSolaris while more than 70% compile on Linux whithout a change. So there is aprox. 1/4th of all software that needs special treatment to make it compile on Solaris. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> I don't see anything in rpm that could not be handled > via the pre and > postinstall scripts that are part of a SVR4 package. Or a Makefile processed by `make` in a pre/postinstall phase of package installation. Which is what you're basically saying, correct? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One of the core values of Solaris is that sharable things really should be shared. Did you check how many versions of libz are available on Solaris? Less than there used to be, more than there should be. It's a design goal, but can't always be met for various reasons and occassionally is simply broken by mistake. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> On 7/20/05, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Is that still considered the "proper practice"? Would > I be considered > "evil" if I released packages without the prefixes? That question is better left for Sun employed engineers, but I write for myself: I wouldn't do it. As a general rule of thumb: [I]anything that could have unforeseen consequences should be avoided at all costs, unless there is no other recourse.[/I] This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 20:19, Sunil wrote: > there is no central registry of package names for > SVR4-format packages. > > we might be able to ditch the stock-ticker-prefix if > we had one. I don't understand. Why would we want to ditch the stock ticker prefix? It's what makes the package unique. If you make up generic package names, you'll still have a problem that packages might be in different places and other SW may expect to find them in those different locations. When packages are made, they should be made such that they're a) always in the same location(s) b) if a vendor comes up with a [I]higher revision[/I], your package gets automatically upgraded or replaced, based on case-by-case situation. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> Wouldn't it be even better to not have to make that > judgment call? Now > don't get me wrong, the stuff done by the likes of > Blastwave and > Sunfreeware were *hugely* important - I'd just like > to see us acting as > a combined community, working on porting the > software, integrating the > software and packaging the software into a single > repository. I think > that's the important point I take out of Alo's > original proposal that > I'd sure like to work on. Yes, of course it would have been better! We have clearly identified an area where there things could improve, but that's not the main problem. The main problem is that people who converted are trying to push "what they're used to" from Linux, thereby reinventing hot water. [I]There is no need to reinvent hot water.[/I] I'm pretty certain that nobody here will believe me, but we keep coming back to this: SGI already has this whole mess not only sorted out, but PEGGED and NAILED. We should talk to them. They've contributed a lot to Linux, they might be willing to contribute to OpenSolaris. > In a community like that, I'd value your contribution > just as much as > anyone else. Just seems like there are a lot of > hurdles and compromises > to get there. And I'd be glad to contribute, that's not even a question in my mind. But first we have to sort out all this confusion and quiet down the noise coming from the Linux-PC gallery. They just want a revolution, but what they don't realize is that revolution is not needed; [I]it's all there already[/I], and what some engineer spent months and years working on is just fine, and [I]does not need to be reinvented[/I]. Again. And again. And again. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: >> > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes >> > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. >> > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort >> > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that >> > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. >> >> Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of >> quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. > > Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux > will even compile on Solaris? Experience? I mean, the most important Free Software programs are working in OpenSolaris, this a fact: GNOME, KDE, almost of the GNU programs, Mozilla, etc. There will be some of them which will fail to compile or won't work as expected, that is sure. We have to fix them sooner or later, so it brings us a list of which ones have problems. It will also be useful to enlarge the OpenSolaris software spectrum. -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Joerg Schilling wrote: >>From my understanding Debian people like to run GNU application on >>top of a given kernel which will create problems with a kernel like >>Solaris that has different features than Linux. > > Replacing vital parts of Solaris with GNU counterparts will not > work. Nobody proposed that: The idea is to include all the freed pieces. I can't really see the problem about this. > I am not sure whether Debian did really solve the problem of > compiling in a well defined and minimal OS environment to allow to > tell the dependencies. > [..] > > On Solaris you could solve this kind of problems using lofs, on > Linux you can't and it seems that Debian is Linux centric. It really makes sense to me: Linux has been the most advanced Free Software choice. What I'm proposing is to make OpenSolaris join that huge community. As long as we continue being apart, Debian will continue being Linux centric, but we can change that joining them with OpenSolaris. -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> Did you ever consider that one possible reason is > that Solaris X86 > simply doesn't have all the drivers - I have a > laptop, and it's less > than 2 years old, which Solaris will install on, but > there simply are no > network drivers for it. So it would take much more of > my time to get to > a usability level on Solaris X86 with that machine > that it would with > JDS/Linux, hence I'm sicking with the latter for the > moment, it doesn't > rule out Solaris X86 - I still have it installed and > if I manage to > locate drivers for it, I'll move, but it's the time > investment needed > that I simply don't have right now. In my 20 years of experience working with computers, if there is one thing that I've learned, then it's [I]get hardware that supports your software, not software that supports your hardware[/I]. Now what does that mean? It simply means, if for example Solaris has built in drivers for a RTL8139 ChipSet, I'll make sure I get HW that has that ChipSet. If the SW supports printing to a PostScript printer, I'll make sure that the printer I buy understands PostScript. This is a lesson I learned very well during my Commodore Amiga days, and it stuck ever since. As a result, I've been relatively [I]unscathed[/I] in regard to all this stuff. Be that as it may, when was the last time you installed Solaris on the x86 platform? Solaris10 has very good HW support for most common HW, and the OEMs are starting to release [I]Solaris native packages[/I] of their drivers right on the 'install CD' along with Windows drivers! For example, I just about fell on my behind when I found Solaris native packages of drivers from a [I]vanilla Taiwan manufacturer[/I] of the machine I bought. Further more, the laptop I'm writing about is a Compaq AMD Athlon "run of the mill" thing. It has a Savage 3D graphics adapter, RTL8139C, and some sort of AC '97 audio. All these things are supported by Solaris10 out-of-the-box, Savage 3D included. And if my audio won't work, I'll just get the audio drivers from http://tools.de/solaris/audio/ And I'm done. Easy as pie. I could probably even get Solaris9 to work on that thing. Where's the problem? Solaris10 on x86 has really come a long way, and its support for x86 is rapidly increasing -- in fact, I've never seen any platform's support start to build momentum so rapidly. > As stated in other threads - it's crazy the amount of > extra libs that > get downloaded if you pkg-get something like this - > and in this case it > was intended to be a learning experience w.r.t. what > is involved in > building such applications as well. As I stated before, Blastwave currently suffers from lack of engineering and quality control. But they have come a long way, and I'm confident that Blastwave will only get even better as the time passes. What "Nekoware" is to SGI IRIX (http://www.nekochan.net/downloads.php) "Blastwave" is to Solaris. Blastwave is already the #1 Freeware provider for the Solaris platform. It can only get better from this point on. As an interesting side note, the Nekoware guys said they "liked the comparison" when I pointed out Blastwave to them. These two projects are very, very much alike, only for different platforms (SGI and Sun). > pkg-get is a great idea, but I think unless it's part > of the core, and > includes the core packages - in other words a person > can update their > entire Open Solars based distro via pkg-get - then we > will always end up > with problems of duplication of packages, etc. Ah, but the question is, [I]what is considered to be the core, and by whom[/I]? Plus, this is very much [I]conceptually wrong[/I]. Why? Because "updating" in the sense you're writing about could end up [I]removing and replacing entire software subsystems[/I], and that [B]rules it out for production right on the spot[/B]. This is the exact same approach that Linux takes. The only way to patch a software subsystem through the OS interfaces is to do `rpm -u` which goes and [I]replaces the entire software subsystem[/I] in order to "update" it. This is very much busted. For example, SuSE is most notorious for breaking production systems in this way, especially when they do kernel updates with YaST. > What Alo was suggesting was having a Debian distro > using an Open Solaris > kernel - why is this such a bad thing? I can only be Because that would mean you'd have a Solaris kernel surrounded with GNU tools. It would effectively behave like a Linux distro, only instead of the Linux kernel you'd have a different kernel. The people that make these kind of suggestions don't understand Solaris, more importantly, they don't understand UNIX! They are proposing to start fitting a square peg into a round hole, because the only experience that they have is working with a round hole! That's just plain wrong. They should learn about the "square peg", instead of trying to make it a "round peg". That's just BUSTED. I can't even
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
>Don't expect things to work if you adopt to "the entire Debian way of
>thinking".
Actually, I do. I don't care much about what the debian project "thinks" or
"expects", and I doubt it's what you claim as:
"As long as Debian compiles software on Linux-2.4 and
expects the resulting binaries to work on Linux-2.2,
the did not yet grok how to deal with evolvoing
interfaces"
I've been using Debian for a while, and I have never really encountered issues
with kernels. Besides, it's besides, the point. The whole thing would not built
against a Linux kernel but against Opensolaris. Entirely different beasts, but
given that most common software which lives in debian builds and works fine for
most other "free" unix likes (*BSD, HURD, Linux) and indeed on a whole slew of
non free (Solaris (well, it used to be non free), Irix, HPUX, AIX) unices, and
heck, even non unices at all (Windows, OpenVMS), I doubt it's really that much
of a problem. Besides, kernel dependent components need to replaced *anyway*,
so I fail to see how your point actually has any relevance at all.
But that's just my view on things through pink glasses :-) I find that
simplistic thinking ("I'm sure it can be done, and it can't be that hard") goes
way further than getting stuck in negativism because there are some obstacles
in the way.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that OpenSolaris could benifit from it. Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux will even compile on Solaris? Because the vast majority of those packages have been run on a large variety of OSes including Solaris. I'm not advocating an particular packaging system (aside from Sun's), but the software products themselves will have a very high "out-of-the-box" build success rate. The most common mistake that open-source packages make is not respecting the --libdir argument to autoconf's configure. This makes it a bit of a pain to put things in /prefix/lib/$(ISA)/ and the same thing with --bindir. Still, "porting" efforts for the vast majority of these projects are simply build process modifications and fixing up of compiler flags and install targets. Hardly ever does it require source code modification. What I think would be great is a FreeBSD Ports style package orchestration system... And you you type "make package" it drops a: PORTname-version.gz in an export directory for administrative consumption. The overall system would simply consist of a versioned pointer to the original source, set of patches to the source (rarely), patches to the build process (commonly), the pkginfo file and a Makefile that "does it." Sounds spectacular to me. It's an orchestration of packages, because the entire system sits well outside of the administrative scope of the machine itself -- packages aren't "installed", just produced. You can do pkgadd, pkgrm them as you please. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Wouldn't it be even better to not have to make that judgment call? Now > >don't get me wrong, the stuff done by the likes of Blastwave and > >Sunfreeware were *hugely* important - I'd just like to see us acting as > >a combined community, working on porting the software, integrating the > >software and packaging the software into a single repository. I think > >that's the important point I take out of Alo's original proposal that > >I'd sure like to work on. > > One of the things that we should perhaps work on is adding the > ability to generate Solaris packages for much of the free software. If the package system is eventually available to OpenSolaris, sps will add this feature. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
"Ferdinand O. Tempel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought about this as well, and as a matter of fact, I want to go through
> with it. The Debian project itself isn't all that enthousiastic due to the
> GPL not being compatible with the CDDL and all that crap, but that doesn't
> mean noone else can have a whack at it. There's only one problem; for Debian
> packages to work, you need to adopt the entire Debian way of thinking. Bells
> and whistles and all. What you're left with is basically Debian with a
> different kernel, a lot like Debian/HURD or Debian/NetBSD. What you *don't*
> get is a {Open}Solaris compatible "distribution" with all the stuff in the
> same place as on your regular Solaris installation. You need to adopt the
> Debian methodology *or* start porting the packages yourself again to fit
> stuff like SMF, "solarisms" like /opt and such. And the reason to start this
> was not to have to do that in the firsplace. Optimally, a rebuild of the
> debian sources to create the packages should be enough (of course that
> implies a working build environment, most likely GCC based). Oh, and you'll
> need to do porting for a lot of "base" packages which are rather linux
> specific. Most of the stuff having to do with specific "linuxisms". But
> luckily a lot of work has been already done in the other porting efforts.
> It's just a matter of pulling all required components together to get a
> "base" going.
Don't expect things to work if you adopt to "the entire Debian way of thinking".
As long as Debian compiles software on Linux-2.4 and
expects the resulting binaries to work on Linux-2.2,
the did not yet grok how to deal with evolvoing
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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes > > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. > > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort > > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that > > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. > >Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of >quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. Why do you expect that packages that only have been tested on Linux will even compile on Solaris? 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-mktg] Re: [osol-discuss] "... on OpenSolaris" is an oxymoron
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Mick wrote: > > > and for the record, /dev/xsvc is coming. I'm working on it personally now. > > BTW, examining the source for aperture, it looks very much like programs > designed to use /dev/xsvc (like the afore-argued-about iasl) would work > fine if /dev/xsvc were a link to /dev/fbs/aperture. Creating this link was my proposal from July 8th... I am not sure either if this will always work as expected. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't get it. you mean somebody actually wants to install SUNWmysql, > > REDHmysql, IMYmysql, YOUmysql at the same time on the same box? > > nothing is to stop Blastwave and Sunfreeware, for instance, from packaging > the > same software. In the case of mysql, if they both chose to use the package > name > MySQL, there would be... trouble. Package names really do need to be > globally-unique. ...once we have a package system on OpenSolaris... 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the core values of Solaris is that sharable things really > should be shared. Did you check how many versions of libz are available on Solaris? 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 14:04, Chris Ricker wrote: > > creating a mysql-4.1 pkg from scratch. Or what if you want the same > > version that Sun shipped, but just need it compiled with different > > options? That's trivial on Linux distros, not so trivial on Solaris > > Thats what the SUNWmysqlS package is for, it is intended to > be almost equivalent to the source rpm. However rpm is both a build > and package system the SVR4 package system isn't. I don't see anything in rpm that could not be handled via the pre and postinstall scripts that are part of a SVR4 package. > The README.sfw file in the package does tell you how configure > was run. This only contains a rough description in prosa but no build system. For GPL'd software, it violates the GPL as the build scripts are not available. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Debian is a well integrated systems, without duplication of >> software, with a great packaging system, 100% free, with loads of >> ready to use software, hundreds and hundreds of active developers, >> dozens of derived distributions, government implantation, etc.. It >> makes Blastwave look like a simply work around. > > A great packaging system isn't so great if it means that there's a > second parallel packaging system and two different commands to use > to remove packages. Debian with OpenSolaris isn't suppose to be Solaris' pkg tools compatible. It isn't Solaris but Debian. The idea is to use only the Debian packaging system. Of course it might be a solaris-pkg-tools package with all those utilities, as well as there is a Debian RPM package [1]. There is the question of patching that is not currently well-defined in Debian. But maybe patching is not that important in this context. If you need to install software outside Debian with OpenSolaris, you could install solaris-pkg-tools and do it. Why not. For the rest of the OpenSolaris technologies, we just have to create a Debian package for each one to get it integrated in the system; with a bit of luck the rest of Debian architectures will adopt it as well. The main aim of Debian with OpenSolaris is to let people use OpenSolaris in the easiest possible way, at the same time we provide a consistent system with tons and tons for ready to use Free Software. So are you proposing a GNU/OSS stack on top of OpenSolaris core ? A full OSS stack will not possible (esp with regards to essential libraries) but most of the apps and utilities should work out well. Regards, Moinak. [1] http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/rpm ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> On Solaris you could solve this kind of problems using lofs, on Linux you > can't > and it seems that Debian is Linux centric http://www.debian.org/ports/#nonlinux And for the building on a minimal configuration; well, there's always the option to take a base debian and use apt to install the build dependencies for $randompackage. Together with a compiler, that should be the minimum environment for a package to be buildable on. Is it sufficient? I don't know, but it seems like 15490 packages have been built without more fancy OS features to aid package developers just fine. I get your point with replacing vital parts with GNU counterparts though. That's not always easy. And not always necessary, either. The only parts needed to put a Debian centric userspace onto an Opensolaris kernel is what's inbetween kernel and userspace. And (as I understand it), that's a bunch of libraries. Is there a list of these "vital" libraries with a tag which says they're available under the CDDL or not? As long as the entire toolchain (gcc and friends) can be told to build packages against an opensolaris kernel (libraries, headers), most packages should only need a simple recompile, or maybe some light porting work. And for a lot of software that's already be done by the folks behind sunfreeware and blastwave. As I see it, things only need to be brought together. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Dragan Cvetkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was a problem discussed a few days ago. Basically, as I understand > it, Blastwave packages are supposed to work the same way on any Solaris > version (from 8 to 11) and you can't guarantee that some required library > would be in the base OS or in the same place. Sun has moved some stuff > from SFW to SUNW and added (and probably removed) a lot of free software > in more recent releases. Correct and this is why it would make sense to have the source package knowledge available for distributions like SchilliX that have the chance to recompile everyting into one coherent binary tree for every new release. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I would have phrased it in those words (after all, part of a > being in a community means being tactful and polite), but debian encompasses > a lot of architectural policy that sfw/csw don't. To be fair, one of the > reasons that they don't is that they are piggybacking on top of the > already-defined architecture from Solaris. Since it already exists, > SunFreeware and Blastwave didn't need to reinvent those particular wheels :-) This is where we will have problems with a Debina/Solaris. >From my understanding Debian people like to run GNU application on top of a given kernel which will create problems with a kernel like Solaris that has different features than Linux. Replacing vital parts of Solaris with GNU counterparts will not work. > Debian has done good things with setting up and maintaining a distinction > between runtime -vs- compile time module/component configuration mechanisms, > installation locations, etc. > > As an example, look at debian's apache2 installation and configuration - the > conf files are all set up for a modular multi-site system, with configuration > and feature selection done by symlinking instead of editing files. (I've > included the apache2 README below to give a flavor of this perspective). I am not sure whether Debian did really solve the problem of compiling in a well defined and minimal OS environment to allow to tell the dependencies. Look at programs like gcc that like to have it's dependencies already installed in the main system at the expected locations. On Solaris you could solve this kind of problems using lofs, on Linux you can't and it seems that Debian is Linux centric. 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can i get some clarification on some things...
>I'm a little confused about a few things hopefully i can get some answers :-) > >a) is the (base opensolaris community sun employees ? Well, I suppose that technically a large number of them are Sun employees; but there are many more people who joined. >b) where did all the code come from... is it from the solaris tree or is this >all new ? It's the core Solaris source code for now; more to follow later. It's from one of the trees in the Solaris forrest (we have many "consolidations" each of which have their own trees and each of which contribute to the final Solaris product) >c) is OpenSolaris just a kernel or a full OS, will it be freebsd style in >distrobution ( one distr o ) or linux style ( one kernel lots of distros ) It's already more than the kernel; but more will follow later. There will likely be multiple distributions. >d) is the kernel the solaris kernel or is it a new o/s kernel in development ? The Solaris kernel. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Can i get some clarification on some things...
Hello! I'm a little confused about a few things hopefully i can get some answers :-) a) is the (base opensolaris community sun employees ? b) where did all the code come from... is it from the solaris tree or is this all new ? c) is OpenSolaris just a kernel or a full OS, will it be freebsd style in distrobution ( one distro ) or linux style ( one kernel lots of distros ) d) is the kernel the solaris kernel or is it a new o/s kernel in development ? Thanks! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problems booting on P-II 233 Notebook.
Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/20/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How may I set "verbosemode" to a value != 0 and when will > > we have full sources for multiboot? > > I'm pretty sure verbosemode is activated by doing -v to the kernel... > > Just like one does -kdv... -v alone does not help, I will try -kdv... 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/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Debian is a well integrated systems, without duplication of >> software, with a great packaging system, 100% free, with loads of >> ready to use software, hundreds and hundreds of active developers, >> dozens of derived distributions, government implantation, etc.. It >> makes Blastwave look like a simply work around. > > A great packaging system isn't so great if it means that there's a > second parallel packaging system and two different commands to use > to remove packages. Debian with OpenSolaris isn't suppose to be Solaris' pkg tools compatible. It isn't Solaris but Debian. The idea is to use only the Debian packaging system. Of course it might be a solaris-pkg-tools package with all those utilities, as well as there is a Debian RPM package [1]. If you need to install software outside Debian with OpenSolaris, you could install solaris-pkg-tools and do it. Why not. For the rest of the OpenSolaris technologies, we just have to create a Debian package for each one to get it integrated in the system; with a bit of luck the rest of Debian architectures will adopt it as well. The main aim of Debian with OpenSolaris is to let people use OpenSolaris in the easiest possible way, at the same time we provide a consistent system with tons and tons for ready to use Free Software. [1] http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/rpm -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
>Wouldn't it be even better to not have to make that judgment call? Now >don't get me wrong, the stuff done by the likes of Blastwave and >Sunfreeware were *hugely* important - I'd just like to see us acting as >a combined community, working on porting the software, integrating the >software and packaging the software into a single repository. I think >that's the important point I take out of Alo's original proposal that >I'd sure like to work on. One of the things that we should perhaps work on is adding the ability to generate Solaris packages for much of the free software. There's now a lot of duplication of effort by people making Solaris packages for the same modules; in some cases, postinstall scripts are pretty hard and to find out which files are part of an installation is also not always that easy. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> As I said, Blastwave isn't even similar to this approach. It has > lot of problems: libraries duplication, zero system integration, > etc. The duplications annoys me too, as does perhaps the fact that it the "Solaris 8" it uses as a lowest common denominator is a bit long in the teeth. E.g., when it comes to Solaris x86 Solaris 8 misses all kinds of features like SSE/SSE2 support which makes it impossible to optimize for modern CPUs. But that is a small failing which can be addressed by looking into a versioning system which could support multiple releases. > Debian is a well integrated systems, without duplication of > software, with a great packaging system, 100% free, with loads of > ready to use software, hundreds and hundreds of active developers, > dozens of derived distributions, government implantation, etc.. It > makes Blastwave look like a simply work around. A great packaging system isn't so great if it means that there's a second parallel packaging system and two different commands to use to remove packages. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: perf problem during nv-b18-x86 install
Joerg Schilling wrote: This looks like the generel Solaris volmgt problem that will disapear with build 19 or 20. Did you try to do the scanbus with a medium in the CD-ROM drive? Jörg No, I believe I had it working before I knew exactly why it would or wouldn't work. But, that won't solve my usage problems. I usually start "xcdroast" with no media in the drive. Xcdroast scans the bus, doesn't see anything and won't run. I have to turn volmgt off. If I put blank media in, Volmgt will then ask to format it, another annoyance. For me, I just use a script to turn Volmgt off when starting xcdroast and restart volmgt after burning disks. Thanks for the clarification on how and why it occurs. I now can use cdrecord/xcdroast better to my advantage now. Paul ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> when I want to install libbonobo as a dependency for
> another package, I want just that and one copy on my
> system, and let every package that needs it find it.
> company ticker appended to package names is one
> ridiculous idea, when a simple package name would do
> just fine. All, pkg-get would check for is if
> libbonobo is installed not if CSWlibbonobo is
> installed. If the --libs, --cflags, --prefix are
> exposed correctly and paths/crle are handled
> correctly, then no matter where the packages are
> installed, they will just find each other.
That's why I keep coming back to pointing out that SGI already has this whole
problem pegged. In fact, SGI has implemented a solution to this problem in IRIX
so elegantly, that it is mind blowing. This is what makes their `inst`
subsystem light years ahead of any package management subsystem out there...
and `inst` is, what? 10+ years old?
Let me give you an example.
SGI has an online repository like Blastwave, called SGI Freeware at
http://freeware.sgi.com/
Now, let's say you install OpenSSH from their repository, for the sake of
getting the concept across, version 1.0.
When `inst` fetches the package, you will get
openssh-1.0.tardist
`inst` then untars the actual [I]package infrastructure[/I] into a temporary
directory, and loads up the binary package descriptions from there.
You end up with a tree view, like this:
eoe.swopenssh
eoe.sw.openssh.sw
...
...
...
eoe.sw.openssh.libs
...
...
eoe.man.openssh
eoe.conf.openssh.etc
So, it's kind of like an HP-UX depot in the sense that there are software
subsystems contained within the what SGI calls a "dist".
BTW, "eoe" stands for "execution only environment", SGI's term for a binary
only package.
Now you get to just pick the entire eoe.sw.openssh dist, ("install") or just
certain components, for example, I may want eoe.sw.openssh.sw and
eoe.sw.openssh.libs, but [I]not[/I] the man pages eoe.man.openssh subsystem
("keep" in SGI terminology).
Run time dependencies are resolved when the admin types in "conflicts" or when
he types in "go" (install the software selections).
Here is the point I'm trying to make:
An admin installs SGI's OpenSSH V1.0, [I]eoe.sw.openssh[/I] (notice the absence
of version? It's the intelligent design of `inst`, but we'll revisit that
later).
Lets say that I now want to install OpenSSH V2.0.
What I do is create my own [I]eoe.sw.openssh[/I], and if I'm just [I]careful
enough[/I], I'll increase the dist's [I]internal serial number[/I] by 1, in
fact, `swpkg` will do this for me [I]automatically[/I] every build iteration.
All I have to do is set the initial [I]internal serial number[/I].
When SGI packages OpenSSH V2.1a38g, the `inst` subsystem sees my
[I]eoe.sw.openssh[/I], sees that the [I]internal serial number[I] is in the
[I]SGI serial number range[/I], and automatically replaces my version of
OpenSSH subsystem!
See the elegance at work?
The idea is that SGI will [I]always compile and package better than myself,
since they know IRIX best and know better than I what they're doing[/I].
Later down the road, should I wish to instal OpenSSH 2.5, all I have to do is
[I]reuse[/I] my dist definitions, copy the [I]internal serial number[/I] of
SGI's OpenSSH into my template(s) and increase it by one, and `inst` will
replace [I]eoe.sw.openssh.* subsystems[/I] that I specify (every subsystem
within [I]eoe.sw.openssh[/I] has its own serial number). This way, I could, for
example, only [I]update eoe.man.openssh[/I] and leave the rest of SGI's OpenSSH
[I]intact[/I].
I hope I've given some insight into how well designed and how intelligent this
stuff is.
I'm really sorry that I don't actually do `inst` justice in these examples.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
I thought about this as well, and as a matter of fact, I want to go through
with it. The Debian project itself isn't all that enthousiastic due to the GPL
not being compatible with the CDDL and all that crap, but that doesn't mean
noone else can have a whack at it. There's only one problem; for Debian
packages to work, you need to adopt the entire Debian way of thinking. Bells
and whistles and all. What you're left with is basically Debian with a
different kernel, a lot like Debian/HURD or Debian/NetBSD. What you *don't* get
is a {Open}Solaris compatible "distribution" with all the stuff in the same
place as on your regular Solaris installation. You need to adopt the Debian
methodology *or* start porting the packages yourself again to fit stuff like
SMF, "solarisms" like /opt and such. And the reason to start this was not to
have to do that in the firsplace. Optimally, a rebuild of the debian sources to
create the packages should be enough (of course that implies a working build
environment, most likely GCC based). Oh, and you'll need to do porting for a
lot of "base" packages which are rather linux specific. Most of the stuff
having to do with specific "linuxisms". But luckily a lot of work has been
already done in the other porting efforts. It's just a matter of pulling all
required components together to get a "base" going.
I think it can be done, and I'd be willing to work on it. But it'll be a fight
against both the OpenSolaris community and the Debian community because both
aren't too thrilled about the idea.
Lots of work ahead, and I still need to compile my first opensolaris code!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
UNIX admin wrote: Yesterday I spent a few hours at night thinking and talking with friends about OpenSolaris and more specifically trying to answer the question of "Why I don't use OpenSolaris on my personal laptop?". I don't know. Why don't you? I know I can't wait for my laptop to come back from repair. Then I'll be able to install Solaris10 on it, and finally get some real work done. Did you ever consider that one possible reason is that Solaris X86 simply doesn't have all the drivers - I have a laptop, and it's less than 2 years old, which Solaris will install on, but there simply are no network drivers for it. So it would take much more of my time to get to a usability level on Solaris X86 with that machine that it would with JDS/Linux, hence I'm sicking with the latter for the moment, it doesn't rule out Solaris X86 - I still have it installed and if I manage to locate drivers for it, I'll move, but it's the time investment needed that I simply don't have right now. I started to think about it because yesterday I saw Chris Hanna - the new intern in my team - trying to compile Anjuta from early in the morning till late... without success. Anjuta is already available as a Solaris native package from Blastwave. What was the specific reason that he had to compile Anjuta himself? As stated in other threads - it's crazy the amount of extra libs that get downloaded if you pkg-get something like this - and in this case it was intended to be a learning experience w.r.t. what is involved in building such applications as well. He tried to compile the whole thing first, but.. oops! it requires the Perl Regular Expressions library, and it does not ship with Solaris, so he had to start compiling it first. He had many of problems trying to do it, but after a number of hours he sorted those problems out. pcre is available as a precompiled, Solaris native package from Blastwave. Why didn't he install it from there? And, I also believe it is on the Sun freeware companion CD, which is what Sun itself compiles and ships with Solaris. In the meanwhile, I thought: «I'm sure he would prefer to type "apt-get install anjuta" rather than spending all that time trying to compile just a dependency of what he really wants to use». apt-get is the Debian program to install software. It manages to install dependencies, to compile packages from the source just by adding "-b" to the command line, to fetch software from repositories all around the world, etc. It is a real pleasure to have this kind of facility when you are working. It lets you focus on your target rather than in sort out some compilation problems. Yes, thank you, we know what `apt-get` is and how it works. We have a pandan to `apt-get` on Solaris. It's called `pkg-get`. From Blastwave. And wouldn't you know it, it functions very similarly, at least conceptually, to `apt-get`, but what's even slicker, it uses the Solaris [I]software subsystem[/I] i.e. `pkgadd` as its engine. Really, really slick stuff. pkg-get is a great idea, but I think unless it's part of the core, and includes the core packages - in other words a person can update their entire Open Solars based distro via pkg-get - then we will always end up with problems of duplication of packages, etc. I'm used to having all those facilities available, and it is really hard living without it after having used it for a while. It's like travelling in a time machine: using Slackware back in 1995. We're used to having these facilities AND MORE available on Solaris as well. I don't know which time machine you guys popped out from, but it would appear, judging by your writing, that you guys don't have a clue that a) Solaris has all this software already easily and readily available b) you are unfamiliar with current trends and practices regarding OpenSource and Freeware on Solaris c) you just plain don't know what is going on, and apparently none of you bothered to look into it deeper. I really don't think you're helping a discussion by insulting people - and I also don't think you're getting the point of this thread. What Alo was suggesting was having a Debian distro using an Open Solaris kernel - why is this such a bad thing? I can only be good for Solaris / Open Solaris users since it will encourage the thousands of opensource software packages to be easily compiled on Open Solaris because developers who prefer the Debian way of doing things can still do so while also being able to benefit from a world class base like Open Solaris. After `pkg-get` install from Blastwave (performed with `wget` which comes as part of the Solaris OE), one would do: `pkg-get -i anjuta` and that would have been the end of that. The proposal I'm about to expose tries to fill this huge usability gap. It tries to bring all those facilities to the OpenSolaris world in order to make Linux users feel at home when they swit
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
Hey, > After experiencing all this mess, I had to make a judgement call. > Either I stick with the Sun Companion CD, which guarantees stability > and good integration, but is too old for compiling most code, or I > simply install a controlled set of Blastwave packages and link with > those. Wouldn't it be even better to not have to make that judgment call? Now don't get me wrong, the stuff done by the likes of Blastwave and Sunfreeware were *hugely* important - I'd just like to see us acting as a combined community, working on porting the software, integrating the software and packaging the software into a single repository. I think that's the important point I take out of Alo's original proposal that I'd sure like to work on. In a community like that, I'd value your contribution just as much as anyone else. Just seems like there are a lot of hurdles and compromises to get there. Glynn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
John Plocher wrote: > I'm not sure I would have phrased it in those words (after all, part > of a being in a community means being tactful and polite), but > debian encompasses a lot of architectural policy that sfw/csw don't. > To be fair, one of the reasons that they don't is that they are > piggybacking on top of the already-defined architecture from > Solaris. Since it already exists, SunFreeware and Blastwave didn't > need to reinvent those particular wheels :-) > > Debian has done good things with setting up and maintaining a > distinction between runtime -vs- compile time module/component > configuration mechanisms, installation locations, etc. > [..] > > IMHO, it is the systems level thought and integration that makes > Debian more than simply a collection of pre-built packages. > Obviously, I have been quite impressed by the thought and effort > that has gone into the Debian system, and agree with David that > OpenSolaris could benifit from it. Yeah, that exactly what I mean. Debian will bring a huge set of quality software greatly integrated to OpenSolaris. As I said, Blastwave isn't even similar to this approach. It has lot of problems: libraries duplication, zero system integration, etc. Debian is a well integrated systems, without duplication of software, with a great packaging system, 100% free, with loads of ready to use software, hundreds and hundreds of active developers, dozens of derived distributions, government implantation, etc.. It makes Blastwave look like a simply work around. I hope OpenSolaris will work to create this new Debian architecture. I'm sure, OpenSolaris users will love it. :-) -- Greetings, alo. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Why I do think OpenSolaris ought to work with Debian
> and your sanity as well because it will duplicate > many of packages already part of /usr or /usr/sfw, > under /opt/csw. > > I might add that this is after the fact that it uses > the same backend as pkgadd. Well, here's the deal: usually you either go with what Sun ships, i.e. the Sun Freeware companion CD, or you go with Blastwave. Doing both on your system is really asking for trouble. I'm writing this from my own experience. I installed some stuff from the Companion CD, and some from Blastwave. Then as I started getting deeper and deeper into compiling software, it started being a bigger and bigger nightmare. For example, Blastwave stuff was notably never (understandably so), and Sun's stuff was very well integrated with Solaris (also understandably so), [I]but the source code expected 'Linux like' behavior[/I] often not even detecting the Sun or Blastwave stuff! Then, as if that wasn't enough, Blastwave only accounts for its own packages, and if you have a piece of SW already installed from Sun Companion CD, it won't pick it up (again, SGI has this PEGGED with `inst`). What's even worse, when compiling with libraries from both, stuff tends to break very often. And it breaks in a really nasty way. After experiencing all this mess, I had to make a judgement call. Either I stick with the Sun Companion CD, which guarantees stability and good integration, but is too old for compiling most code, or I simply install a controlled set of Blastwave packages and link with those. I decided to go with the latter, and for the most part, it works. The trouble comes when I compile against a Blastwave package that isn't properly integrated. Then, I'm completely on my own. Not only do I have to compile the target SW, but I also have to compile its dependencies and make sure those dependencies are correctly compiled against Blastwave. And if I run into incorrectly integrated Blastwave package at this point, I have to recurse further, and compile some more. However, it's the only half-sane, and just about the cleanest way of doing it that I could come up with, short of reproducing my own version of the entire Blastwave repository. The ironic part is, I have on several occasions offered to Phil to help with packaging some of their broken stuff, but the Blastwave guys expected me to also support / port the software in question. I'm no developer, and I don't know squat about porting, plus I don't have the time resources necessary to support all the packages that need properly packaged. What I do have is the experience and knowledge to [I]integrate the package into Solaris properly[/I], but the Blastwave guys obviously aren't interested in that part of my offer. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> I'm a tech writer at Sun. I'm going to review this > information and get > back to you about adding this procedure to the > docs.sun.com documentation. I'd be interested in any feedback and suggestions you could provide on improving the article. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> > 1. you patch the source code if necessary > > Is there a 'recommended' format for patches in the > Solaris environment? > > Is this the correct commands to create a patch: > > diff -u old_file new_file > > and to apply the patch: > > patch -i patch_file file_to_be_patched > > or is there some other tricks that I should be aware > of? That's pretty much it. A scalable way would be to write the patches into the source code directory (so that the source code remains intact), then use a Makefile and have `make` patch the source code for you right before the compilation. This also implies that the patched code would either have to be written out into a separate file, and the Makefile would have to account for that, or that you would have a prepackaged source code package in /var/spool/pkg/. Either way, with a little bit of forethought and engineering, one can easily build a nice scalable system to get the sw to seamlessly compile on Solaris (and any other UNIX, for that matter) by just using the out-of-the-box tools that come with the Solaris OE. The hardest part in all of this is patching the GCC, Linux-centric code and getting it to compile... This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Are you ready for VPN on the OS? vpnc and patch for OS people.
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Glenn Lagasse wrote: > The big difference though is that the cost of entry > for customization / > maintaining current status is a lot lower on Linux, > just because you get > the source packages. There's a lot less effort in, > say, changing your > distro's mysql-4.0.src.rpm to build > mysql-4.1.arch.rpm than there is in > creating a mysql-4.1 pkg from scratch. Or what if you > want the same > version that Sun shipped, but just need it compiled > with different > options? That's trivial on Linux distros, not so > trivial on Solaris This seems to be a general misperception of current state of affairs. It's not [i]lack of source packages[/I] that's the crux of the problem here, but the fact that [I]a lot of source code is still completely Linux centric[/I]. The general rule of thumb is "well, it works on my system! If it doesn't work on your OS, use Linux!" [I]That's just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it and dice it.[/I] > > That's also the one big limitation of sunfreeware / > blastwave -- no > concept of a "source package" to use as a starting > point > > later, > chris > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
