[osol-discuss] [Annoucement] ksh93-integration update2 2009-08-22 binaries available for download (for Solaris 11 Nevada >= B110+OpenSolaris/Indiana) ...
Hi!
2009-08-22: ksh93-integration update 2 tarballs for Solaris 11
Nevada+OpenSolaris/Indiana
These tarballs ([2]) are intended to be installed over an existing
Solaris Nevada/Indiana/OpenSolaris >= B110 i386 or SPARC installation
and provide ksh93t+_20090505 and the content described in PSARC/2009/248
("ksh93 update to 2009-03-10") and PSARC/2009/249 ("more ksh93 command
conversions").
Note that the binaries are provided for testing and evaluation purposes
ONLY.
Please report any problems/errors/bugs/comments to the ksh93-integration
project bugzilla[5] or the ksh93-integration mailinglist[4] (please
subscribe before posting).
Quick links:
- Download&&install instructions:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ksh93-integration/downloads/2009-08-22/
- Webrev:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gisburn/ksh93_integration_update2_20090822_webrev/
Differences to the previous test release (2009-07-02)
The only difference to the previous test release
(http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/ksh93-integration/downloads/2009-07-02/)
is the fix for the /usr/bin/tail, /usr/xpg4/bin/tail and "tail"
utilities to handle FIFOs correctly (see
http://bugs.grommit.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630 ('AST "tail" fails to handle
FIFOs correctly' ; the patch (including a testcase) can be found at
http://bugs.grommit.com/attachment.cgi?id=331)).
The fixed "tail" utility can be identified based on it's version number
which should now print "2009-08-15":
-- snip --
$ tail
--version
version tail (AT&T Research) 2009-08-15
-- snip --
Highlights of this release:
- Many bugfixes to ksh93, it's infrastructure and other
commands, primarily focussing on stability, improved error
checking, performance and fixing support for large, complex
variable trees.
- The several commands have been updated (or added) and now
include common GNU+BSD+AST features, including:
/usr/bin/cksum
/usr/bin/cmp
/usr/bin/comm
/usr/bin/cut
/usr/bin/head
/usr/bin/join
/usr/bin/kill
/usr/bin/logname
/usr/bin/mkfifo
/usr/bin/paste
/usr/bin/print
/usr/bin/rev
/usr/bin/sleep
/usr/bin/sum
/usr/bin/tail
/usr/bin/tee
/usr/bin/test
/usr/bin/uniq
/usr/bin/wait
/usr/bin/wc
/usr/xpg4/bin/tail
(the full list of updated commands can be found below)
- The following bugs/RFEs will be fixed by this putback:
+--+
|BugID |Title |
|---+--|
|4701104|*tail* tail -r has limitations on un-mmappable files |
| |(/etc/mnttab) |
|---+--|
|6605478|ksh93 profile shell option does not work |
|---+--|
|6705126|first call to read does not honor new setting of |
| |HISTFILE |
|---+--|
|6764665|*libpp* Array overrun in libpp|
|---+--|
|6765756|*libast* Array overruns in libast |
|---+--|
|6769332|Recursive function+command substitutions terminate|
| |shell after 257 iterations|
|---+--|
|6778077|*ksh93* does not understand "THAW" as a signal for use|
| |with trap |
|---+--|
|6789247|[ku1] libast/ksh93 1-digit hexfloat base |
| |conversion rounds incorrectly |
|---+--|
|6790507|RFE: Update /usr/bin/tail and /usr/xpg4/bin/tail to |
| |AT&T AST "tail" |
|---+--|
|6791838|*ksh93* unset of a variable which is not set |
| |should return 0 |
|---+--|
|6793714|RFE: Update /usr/bin/comm to AT&T AST "comm" |
|---+--|
|6793719|RFE: Update /usr/bin/cut to AT&T AST "cut"|
|---+--|
|6793721|RFE: Update /usr/bin/paste to AT&T AST "paste"|
|---+--|
|6793722|RFE: Update /usr/bin/cmp to AT&T AST "cmp"|
|---+--|
|6793726|RFE: Update /usr/bin/uniq to AT&T AST "uniq"
Re: [osol-discuss] Mounting Extended partitions logical drives.
Hi Brian, I have used ls --color in .bashrc and it did work when I havn't installed any software. But, Once I have installed java, python 2.5.2, fuse software, ntfs for mounting ntfs, ls --color did not work. Then I have read a blog from one of the sun's employee and he talked about gls and it worked no matter whatever you have installed. Regarding auto mounting may be I might have put the question in a wrong way. In most linux os, the mount all the partitions into media and these partitions appear in the second column of the top os main bar. And, inorder to mount a drive we just have to click on it. I was hoping this same feature in opensolaris. And, is there any way to download 119 source and build it. As, I really don't like running this great OS on a virtual machine. Thanks, ~Tiger. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Bordeaux roadmap Office 2007 on OpenSolaris
I'll pay $50 for license if you make Mathematica, Matlab & CATIA running on OpenSolaris! Uros Nedic > Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:06:24 -0700 > From: twickl...@gmail.com > To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: [osol-discuss] Bordeaux roadmap Office 2007 on OpenSolaris > > We now have Office 2007 running in our SVN version of Bordeaux. There are > still a couple bugs that we need to hack around.. But its installing and > running now.. :) > > http://bordeauxgroup.com/press-release/bordeaux-2009-roadmap > > We should be ready to start a 2.0 beta cycle soon, if this is something your > interested in let us know here : > > http://bordeauxgroup.com/contact > > BTW.. Bordeaux cost $25.00 and only customers can get the early beta builds. > I'm sorry we have to charge for it, but it's hard to pay the bills if we dont. > > Cheers, > > Tom Wickline > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org _ Share your memories online with anyone you want. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photos-share.aspx?tab=1 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problems installing OpenSolaris
I'm a total newb myself, however if you can't boot it from the CD then I'm guessing your hardware isn't supported. Although you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I also noticed that when I installed it on my Macbook Pro, it had to be installed on the first available partition (which is actually the second partition as the first is reserved for Mac OS X boot something or rather). I had to change the id of the first partition to AF which - as I understand - openSolaris does't recognise. If I tried on one of the other partitions, the installer would fail with a fdisk error. Or if I installed it on the first av. partition and then created another partition in front of that, or gave the first Mac parition an id that OS can recognise (like EE) then it wouldn't boot. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Bordeaux roadmap Office 2007 on OpenSolaris
Tom Wickline wrote: We now have Office 2007 running in our SVN version of Bordeaux. There are still a couple bugs that we need to hack around.. But its installing and running now.. :) http://bordeauxgroup.com/press-release/bordeaux-2009-roadmap We should be ready to start a 2.0 beta cycle soon, if this is something your interested in let us know here : http://bordeauxgroup.com/contact BTW.. Bordeaux cost $25.00 and only customers can get the early beta builds. I'm sorry we have to charge for it, but it's hard to pay the bills if we dont. $25 to get that abomination (Office 2007) running on OpenSolaris is small beer! -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Bordeaux roadmap Office 2007 on OpenSolaris
We now have Office 2007 running in our SVN version of Bordeaux. There are still a couple bugs that we need to hack around.. But its installing and running now.. :) http://bordeauxgroup.com/press-release/bordeaux-2009-roadmap We should be ready to start a 2.0 beta cycle soon, if this is something your interested in let us know here : http://bordeauxgroup.com/contact BTW.. Bordeaux cost $25.00 and only customers can get the early beta builds. I'm sorry we have to charge for it, but it's hard to pay the bills if we dont. Cheers, Tom Wickline -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] disk layout
On 08/20/09 02:36, Vano Beridze wrote: Glenn Lagasse wrote: Hi Vano, * Vano Beridze (vano.beri...@silkroad.ge) wrote: Hello I have one 80gb hdd and 2 identical 320 hdd-s. All of them are sata drives. I'm going to install OpenSolaris 2009.06 on 80gb HDD and create mirrored pool using 2 320 hdd drives to store my data. I have the following questions: 1. Is it good drive layout? Can I have mirrored root pool using only 2 320 hdd-s? It's one option. As long as you don't mind having no parity for your root pool on the 80G disk. And yes, you can create a mirrored root pool using only the 320G disks. That's great that I can do mirrored pool using only 2 320 disks, So I will save 80gb disk for something else. If I create mirrored root pool using only 2 320 disks will I be able to recover easily in case of one disk failure? Yes. I have experienced that with 2x500GB disk drives, back in the S10 11/06 or 8/07 time frame. I was UFS boot, and I don't remember which drive failed. However, the 400GB of data I had on it in a ZFS pool was still there, and re-silvered when I received the replacement drive. I mean it will like: 1. remove failed hdd from the pool. If it if isn't already marked a such. 2. remove it physically 3. install new one physically 4. add new disk into the pool I think replace is the option/sub-command I used. and everything will be rebuilt and my root mirrored pool will be ready? 2. Will I be able create pool at the install time or I should do it afterwards? You have to do that afterwards. Installer only allow you to create a root pool. Personally, and it is just me, in your configuration I would consider installing the rpool on the 80 GB drive, in maybe a 70+ GB slice, and leave another slice handy. Then I would create the data pool on the pair of 320GB drives, mirrored. Solaris does not boot off of EFI labeled disks, so the boot disk needs an SMI label. That means the write cache is turned off. Thus you are leaving a little behind in terms of write performance, which may not make a different--it doesn't in most of my cases. By having the data be on separate, non-boot, it can be EFI. However, you could also use that other slice on the 80GB disk as an intent log. Your OS slice should not get a lot of major traffic to it, so splitting the intent log from the data spindles may do well for some writes, especially NFS writes, without a lot of contention to the intent log. Just a thought, since there will be a risk that if the 80GB drive goes, you are down until it is fixed. Alternatively, it is a good place to put backups, if you boot off of the 320GB disks. Steffen The installer will create the root pool for you on whatever disk you choose. You will have to setup the mirror after installation. See the ZFS documentation on how to do that. Ok I will look at it. 3. My motherboard Asus P5B Deluxe has 2 controllers. Should I connect 320 hdd-s to separate sata port of the each controller to achieve better safety/performance? IIRC sata doesn't have this sort of guideline like old IDE interfaces did. In IDE land, you wanted to seperate out the controllers you used so that you weren't blocked when making requests to drives on the same controller. Sata did away with this limitation. I undesrtand, but will it be faster or slower to use two separate controllers? Cheers, ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] finding sufficient privilege using ppriv
Vikash Tulsiyan wrote:
I am writing an installer script for opensolaris. It changes
preferred authority, enable/disable pkg service on my localhost,
pushes the application package to my depot server and eventually
install the package from depot server. However i first need to check
if user running my script has sufficient privileges to perform these
tasks. Is runnning "ppriv $$" in my script and then checking for
'all' in E field a reliable check?
The answer I sent you on Wednesday (attached) still applies in this
case. What you need to perform these tasks is a specific set of
authorizations and privileges. Having all auths and all privs is
certainly sufficient, but not necessary.
As I said Wednesday, it's not a good idea to write scripts that try to
predict whether operations will succeed or fail. In the best case, if
you do it perfectly, you have a fragile implementation that may break
whenever the underlying OS changes.
It's a far more effective programming model to simply issue the commands
and see if they succeed or not.
Scott
--
Scott Rotondo
Principal Engineer, Solaris Security Technologies
President, Trusted Computing Group
Phone/FAX: +1 408 850 3655 (Internal x68278)
--- Begin Message ---
Vikash Tulsiyan wrote:
I am writing a script that allows any user(with appropriate
permissions) to install packages and start/stop some services on
opensolaris. As far as i know only Primary Administrator has the
priviledge to perform these task. Is my understanding correct or any
other role allows similar privilege?
No, what's actually required is an authorization. The solaris.smf.manage
authorization allows you to start/stop any service. Two profiles that
contain this authorization are Service Managment and Service Operator.
Of course, Primary Administrator will also work because it contains all
authorizations.
Individual services can also define authorizations that allow management
of that particular service, and these authorizations can be included in
RBAC profiles.
Also whats the best way to find out if a given user has a particular
role or not. Say in my script if i am looking if a particular user
have Primary Administrator role or not. Is [i]profiles {USER} | grep
-i Primary Administrator[/i] a good check or is there a better way?
Yes, that will work to answer the specific question about whether a user
has the Primary Administrator profile. But as explained above, there are
several other profiles that could give the user sufficient authorization
to start or stop a given service.
As you can see, this gets pretty complicated. It's generally not a good
idea to try to predict whether or not a user or process is sufficiently
privileged to perform some operation. A much better approach is to have
the script/program just try the operation and report an error if it
doesn't succeed.
Scott
--
Scott Rotondo
Principal Engineer, Solaris Security Technologies
President, Trusted Computing Group
Phone/FAX: +1 408 850 3655 (Internal x68278)
--- End Message ---
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DRAFT2: OpenSolaris Use Case Project Proposal
Che Kristo wrote: I am happy to be the "point of contact" for this project. Great. I think genunix wiki would be a great starting point for our community to begin a web page whilst the content transition is taking place. If no one objects to this within the next 24 hours I will go ahead and generate a page there. Great. Here's where the final proposal lives. http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/use_case_project_proposal Cheers, Jim -- Jim Walker, http://blogs.sun.com/jwalker Sun Microsystems, Broomfield, Colorado ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] finding sufficient privilege using ppriv
On 08/21/09 09:19, Vikash Tulsiyan wrote: I am writing an installer script for opensolaris. It changes preferred authority, enable/disable pkg service on my localhost, pushes the application package to my depot server and eventually install the package from depot server. However i first need to check if user running my script has sufficient privileges to perform these tasks. Is runnning "ppriv $$" in my script and then checking for 'all' in E field a reliable check? I would say 'no'. I could have sufficient privileges to do the action without being 'root'. Not sure what processes would have 'all' that are not root. s...@marlton: 328% ppriv $$ |grep "E:" E: basic,cpc_cpu,dtrace_kernel,dtrace_proc,dtrace_user,sys_resource So I could do quite a bit of stuff here. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] DRAFT2: OpenSolaris Use Case Project Proposal
Mike Gerdts wrote: I added the Systems Administration area. Technically, that is the "Systems Administration Community Group". I use the term "area" to indicate something bigger than Community Groups. These categories are used to help organize the Use Cases nothing more. The Systems Administration Community may focus on the Systems Administration area, but that doesn't mean that others can help too. I recommend not directly associating areas with Community Groups, so people don't think you have to be a member of the Community Group to contribute. Just a few more details before we begin the project ratification process: - need someone to volunteer to be project point of contact Since you have taken the initiative to propose it, I nominate you. If there is a reason that you do not want this role, feel free to decline. Thanks for the support, but I decline. But, I will help out when I can. - I would like one more Community to sponsor this project since it crosses Community Boundaries. If you think the project proposal can be ratified in your Community let me know. The Documentation and Testing Communities already plan to sponsor this project. I think it is appropriate for the Systems Administration Community Group (hereafter "sysadmin community") to sponsor it as well. Peter Tribble (a core contributor in the sysadmin community) forwarded the proposal to sysadmin-discuss, suggesting he would support endorsement. I am also a core contributor in the sysadmin community and am supportive. Sounds good. o Initial Project Members: I think this should be "Project Members" Once the project is established I expect there to be more members. This is just to get things started. But, I'll use the term "Project Members". Joanie Diggs (joanied) Jason Schroeder (jks) Alex Smith (sentinel) Uros Nedic (urosn) Sriram Natarajan () Steven Acres (swa) Rich Reynolds (odd1) Octave Orgeron (oorgeron) Che Kristo (che) Guruprasad (lgp_cse) norbert (norbertc) Hernan Saltiel (hecsa) Masafumi Ohta (masafumi) Ken Mays (kmays) Mike Gerdts (mgerdts) Thanks, Jim -- Jim Walker, http://blogs.sun.com/jwalker Sun Microsystems, Broomfield, Colorado ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Nautilus Access List Tab
How do I get this in OpenSolaris 2009.06? http://www.alobbs.com/albums/albun26/ZFS_acl_dialog1.jpg thanks. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Problems installing OpenSolaris
Hi guys, I'm new to open solaris and am trying to install opensolaris on my acer laptop, but each time i try, it loads the little dots and then just stays on the black screen with the sun information and nothing happens. Please can someone tell me how to fix this? I'm trying to move from ubuntu to opensolaris? Thanks Ashlee -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] finding sufficient privilege using ppriv
I am writing an installer script for opensolaris. It changes preferred authority, enable/disable pkg service on my localhost, pushes the application package to my depot server and eventually install the package from depot server. However i first need to check if user running my script has sufficient privileges to perform these tasks. Is runnning "ppriv $$" in my script and then checking for 'all' in E field a reliable check? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] question about QFS
That must be the commercial supported one, i understand it is open source and a project under opensolaris at http://opensolaris.org/os/project/samqfs/ On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Jiawei Zhao wrote: > sorry to ask this question here, I can not find a dedicated forum for QFS > though. Is QFS free to use on solaris and linux? I see on sun download page > for QFS that it has a 90 days trial period, not sure about if that means it > can be used only for so long. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] question about QFS
sorry to ask this question here, I can not find a dedicated forum for QFS though. Is QFS free to use on solaris and linux? I see on sun download page for QFS that it has a 90 days trial period, not sure about if that means it can be used only for so long. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
