Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
Doug Poland wrote: > How do I get the OS up to build 139? OS builds past 134 are not available outside of Oracle at this time. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
On 07/19/10 10:25 PM, Doug Poland wrote: Thanks for the info. I checked out the instructions in the URL you supplied and have a follow-up question. How do I get the OS up to build 139? If I only need the new driver 195.36.24, how do I make pkg fetch that particular version? You don't need to update from b134. Download the current driver from nvidia.com. Follow the instructions in the previous message on how to unpack the driver and install it in a new BE. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:32:06PM -0400, John Martin wrote: > On 07/19/10 02:44 PM, Doug Poland wrote: > > > >I ran pkg image-update and am now running svn_134. Xorg still uses the > >vesa driver and performance is worse than 2009.06. I did some googling > >and came across a thread > >(http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=120352) in which > >someone suggested that one needs the R190 driver or better. Build 129 > >has this driver. > > According to the log file, you have device id 0x645 (different from > the card in the above thread). This id was not in the 190.53 driver > (Solaris or Linux) delivered to build 132 (no update through 134). > The first driver release officially listing this id was 195.36.24 > (build 139). > > You should install the current release driver in a new BE following > the instructions in comments #5,6,10 of: > > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12196 > > FWIW, you were using the nv X driver, not VESA. > Thanks for the info. I checked out the instructions in the URL you supplied and have a follow-up question. How do I get the OS up to build 139? If I only need the new driver 195.36.24, how do I make pkg fetch that particular version? -- Regards, Doug ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] I want to help, where do I start?
> This community inspires me to get involved in a way I > was never inspired with Linux. > > So where do I start? What part of this vast community > needs man power? Daniel, It's unfortunate that you've to witness OpenSolaris going through this state of affairs but things should get clearer after the dust settles down. Some members of this community are already joining efforts to fill the gaps left by Oracle. We have the open source code and we have talented people more than willing to stand up and make a difference. Thanks for the interest and please keep that enthusiasm burning. You'll soon find ways you can contribute too. In the mean time, you can contribute (and learn) a great deal by trying to help people with their issues in other mailing lists [1] (opensolaris-help, networking, security, zfs, storage, sysadmin, etc). [1] - http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo Regards, -- Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] mplayer + VDPAU + opensolaris = ?
On 07/19/10 07:40 PM, Aleksey Cheusov wrote: Hi all. I'm trying to setup mplayer with VDPAU on OpenSolaris v_134 on Atom/ION-based Acer Aspire Revo 3600. I've compiled it successfully from source and run the following command mplayer -vo vdpau \ -vc ffmpeg12vdpau,ffwmv3vdpau,ffvc1vdpau,ffh264vdpau hd-video.m2ts Do the H.264 samples in the VDPAU readme file play correctly? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris/Opensolaris, for a Server, or Desktop?
Before you go all macahoic on the audience, consider this - if you think Oracles' lack of communication is bad, try a life with Pastor Jobs. At first it was great - as with any drug. Then came the hard drugs of heavy machinery emptying your pockets, and at last the thugs of the legal shutting everybody up that had a shroud of an opinion. If you value your sanity, stay away from the Macs. It's a disillusional life. Yup, have the lineup. Am selling. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/19/10 12:05, Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: ... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? For those interested in learning more about the dependency solver use by pkg(5) (integrated in build 128), read more here: http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/satisfaction You don't seem to know that SchilliX has no problems to resolve dependencies using tsort since several years. tsort works for linker dependencies since 30 years the only difference is that the output has to be reversed for packages. Jörg This would assume that dependencies do not contain version information, there are no incorporations, optional or exclude dependencies, and there are no cycles in the dependency graph. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance bart.smaald...@oracle.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] mplayer + VDPAU + opensolaris = ?
Hi all. I'm trying to setup mplayer with VDPAU on OpenSolaris v_134 on Atom/ION-based Acer Aspire Revo 3600. I've compiled it successfully from source and run the following command mplayer -vo vdpau \ -vc ffmpeg12vdpau,ffwmv3vdpau,ffvc1vdpau,ffh264vdpau hd-video.m2ts CPU usage is usually significantly less than 5%, so I guess VDPAU tries to work but video is... very bad. Mplayer shows video with lots of jerks (not sure about English translation, sorry) Mplayer is a snapshot dated approximately 20091017. Any clue? Should I configure gnome or video driver additionally? -nosound option doesn't help. Mplayer output: == Forced video codec: ffmpeg12vdpau Forced video codec: ffwmv3vdpau Forced video codec: ffvc1vdpau Opening video decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg's libavcodec codec family [VD_FFMPEG] Trying pixfmt=0. Unsupported PixelFormat -1 Movie-Aspect is undefined - no prescaling applied. VO: [vdpau] 1920x1080 => 1920x1080 VC1 VDPAU acceleration [VD_FFMPEG] XVMC-accelerated MPEG-2. [VD_FFMPEG] Trying pixfmt=0. [VD_FFMPEG] XVMC-accelerated MPEG-2. [VD_FFMPEG] XVMC-accelerated MPEG-2. Selected video codec: [ffvc1vdpau] vfm: ffmpeg (FFmpeg WVC1 (VDPAU)) == Audio: no sound Starting playback... [VD_FFMPEG] XVMC-accelerated MPEG-2. Movie-Aspect is 1.78:1 - prescaling to correct movie aspect. VO: [vdpau] 1920x1080 => 1920x1080 VC1 VDPAU acceleration -- Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
On 07/19/10 02:44 PM, Doug Poland wrote: I ran pkg image-update and am now running svn_134. Xorg still uses the vesa driver and performance is worse than 2009.06. I did some googling and came across a thread (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=120352) in which someone suggested that one needs the R190 driver or better. Build 129 has this driver. According to the log file, you have device id 0x645 (different from the card in the above thread). This id was not in the 190.53 driver (Solaris or Linux) delivered to build 132 (no update through 134). The first driver release officially listing this id was 195.36.24 (build 139). You should install the current release driver in a new BE following the instructions in comments #5,6,10 of: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=12196 FWIW, you were using the nv X driver, not VESA. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release?
Ha! That was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh ;) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Where is OpenSolaris 2010 release?
I agree with kebabber. Solaris is the most common server operating system. When reliability, predictability and uniform upgrades and support are required, sensible IT teams always chose Solaris. It is a known fact in the veteran community. Unfortunately, newbies and google engineers do not seem to understand that. It's sad. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith > wrote: > > > >>> CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX > ... SVR4) CPIO archive format > >>> Solaris is currently using by default is even > limited to 4 GB file size. > >> So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files > larger than 4gb, there is > >> something seriously wrong. Are there any packages in Solaris 10 or Next that are even 1GB in size? I somehow doubt it. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was, will CPIO or IPS' new on-disk format be used and that's pretty much been answered further down this thread. > > >>> It has been shown already that pkgadd can be > enhanced to use other > >>> archive types and I am strongly against > introducing something new > >>> that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. > >> Using cpio in the installs is hardly new. > > > > I was replying to a person who proposed to use cpio > for something new. > > No, he was simply referring to the OS install cd's, > which have used cpio > for a long time. Precisely. There is nothing new about using CPIO for Solaris install CDs or DVDs. Something new would be using an IPS on-disk format for these. ;-) Cheers Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
> On 07/19/10 03:53 AM, andrew wrote: > ... > > So the big question is: will Solaris Next use IPS > packaging? My money is on IPS packaging but a big fat > CPIO-based DVD installation similar to S10 but using > the new Caiman installers from OpenSolaris (local > text and graphics-based installs plus via serial > line, network and service processor consoles). > > If you've been watching the pkg-discuss mailing list, > you'd note that > the on-disk form for the image packaging system is > already under > development. > > And for the record, the chosen format is not CPIO. Cool. I won't ask you to confirm plans for the Solaris Next DVD install format since that's an Oracle *product*. ;-) Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Mark Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Joerg Schilling > wrote: >> "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: >> >>> A packaging system is a packaging system. IPS is nobody's favorite, >>> but that's better than arguing the merits of rpm vs deb vs BSD ports vs ... >> >> The SVr4 packaging system understands http based URIs for the packages since >> 2006. >> >> It does support the knowledge on dependencies since a long time... >> If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages >> (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, >> is there really something missing? >> > > For me the question here is twofold: > > a) How important is it that there be an upgrade path for existing "The > OpenSolaris(tm)" users? Is it important to us, collectively, that we > continue the path that Sun led the community down via Indiana and IPS? > Or can we say, "here, here are distros created by the real open > community, but I'm afraid it isn't exactly aligned with the goals > (whatever they were) of Indiana. Here's a laptop focused distro and a > server one, but I'm afraid IPS isn't in them." There are probably some for which an upgrade path is important. I don't use Indiana except on x86, and that only under Virtualbox, so upgrade isn't what I care about. The ability to mix and match non-core Indiana packages and contributed packages is more interesting to me though. And if Solaris Next turns out to be very much like Indiana, then working with Indiana gives me experience that will eventually do me some good other than just at home; using some other OpenSolaris based distro...probably not. > b) If the answer to #1 isn't "Yes", can we collectively decide which > is the right way to go? Can we get enough folks to compromise behind > just *1* (community decided) strategy? Or has that ship sailed with > Nexenta? I think there are enough distros already that are different from Indiana, unless one is very clear about what benefit an additional distro with differences would provide. If you just like the OpenSolaris kernel, but want a different packaging system, or different user-land, or ..., then why not pick an existing distro and help keep it more up-to-date, instead? For example, if Belenix or Korona were staying up with the latest source that was somewhat stable, I might be fine with that. Nexenta? A good piece of work, but not my thing; there are relatively few bits of GNU userland that I like. Korona might appeal to me, if they were doing their own OS builds; from what I've seen, I like KDE much better than GNOME, although no doubt some freeware I want will be dependent on GTK+ and so on too. > I'm with you, Jörg, I think the community deserves the right to > actually decide for itself this time around. Just 'cause Sun wanted > to invent its own at the time doesn't mean we're stuck with that > decision. One has the _right_ to anything that one works to make happen, without harming others to achieve it. He who does the work, gets the control. I don't yet _quite_ feel so abused that I want to stop being lazy and try for something that I can control. I'm not so into bleeding-edge that a few months delay bothers me all that much. It's only the silence that's arrogant and unhelpful. I think if Oracle expects any value from open source, they need to understand that they have to communicate a little more than their present policy appears to allow, and that their present behavior would cause problems even for a truly community distro, because they do most of the work, and because knowledge of a non-commercial distro just isn't as marketable. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
On 07/19/10 02:44 PM, Doug Poland wrote: Hello, I'm very new to OpenSolaris but am quite familiar with FreeBSD. I have a box with an NVIDIA G96 GeForce 9500 GS. I installed 2009.06 and the installer choose the Xorg vesa driver. I have a working X desktop but colors and performance are unappealing. I ran pkg image-update and am now running svn_134. Xorg still uses the vesa driver and performance is worse than 2009.06. I did some googling and came across a thread (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=120352) in which someone suggested that one needs the R190 driver or better. Build 129 has this driver. If I'm not mistaken, build 134 should include this driver, but I have no success getting Xorg to start using the nvidia driver. I can supply exact error messages if necessary. The file created by /usr/bin/nvidia-SunOS-bug-report.sh is the best starting point. You can send it to me privately and I will summarize for the group. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
John Plocher wrote: > Shawn, Joerg, Richard, et.al, > > IMO this is not the time or place to argue about this level of detail - like > it or not, IPS is part of what we have and isn't going to magically go away > anytime soon. Neither are SVr4 packages. > > What we don't have is an up to date buildable, downloadable, installable > *community distro* that uses EITHER of those two technologies. It seems to > me that our energies are better spent getting to the point where we have the > above before we balkanize and fragment over whether or not it should have > some particular feature :-) This is an important reason for not going to IPS at the moment. I started with build 130, the last release that is expected to be usable for SchilliX without problems. I belive, we need a clean OSS version before stepping from b130. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
On 07/19/10 02:44 PM, Doug Poland wrote: Hello, I'm very new to OpenSolaris but am quite familiar with FreeBSD. I have a box with an NVIDIA G96 GeForce 9500 GS. I installed 2009.06 and the installer choose the Xorg vesa driver. I have a working X desktop but colors and performance are unappealing. I ran pkg image-update and am now running svn_134. Xorg still uses the vesa driver and performance is worse than 2009.06. I did some googling and came across a thread (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=120352) in which someone suggested that one needs the R190 driver or better. Build 129 has this driver. If I'm not mistaken, build 134 should include this driver, but I have no success getting Xorg to start using the nvidia driver. I can supply exact error messages if necessary. Would appreciate any info and/or assistance. You may have to delete the xorg.conf file. Current Opensolaris doesn't use that file anymore unless you need to over-ride a default setting. I suspect you may have that file set up for the vesa driver. Paul ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris/Opensolaris, for a Server, or Desktop?
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:18 PM, David Brodbeck > wrote: > > > > > > Is there any real reason to run compiz, other than > so you can watch your windows go up in flames or > break into little tiny cubes when you close them? > That stuff sold Vista but I'm not convinced of its > value on a *nix desktop, other than the wow factor > when doing demos. > > Well, one feature that definitely sells me is true > transparency, so you can > see through a terminal window to what's underneath. > This means you can > leave stuff running and can get visual feedback on > its progress, while working > on something else, all transparently. (As it were...) On my mac (native GUI), I have terminal windows set to a slightly translucent black, which lets just enough through that I can see what's happening beneath ,but not be distracted by it. That is indeed handy in making best use of screen space sometimes. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Shawn Walker wrote: > On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > ... > > If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages > > (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, > > is there really something missing? > > For those interested in learning more about the dependency solver use by > pkg(5) (integrated in build 128), read more here: > >http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/satisfaction You don't seem to know that SchilliX has no problems to resolve dependencies using tsort since several years. tsort works for linker dependencies since 30 years the only difference is that the output has to be reversed for packages. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Shawn Walker wrote: > Joerg, if you think that's all the SVr4 system is missing compared to > pkg(5), then I think you need to take some time to find out more about > the image packaging system. > > There is significantly more functionality provided. I am not yet convinced whether this is really functionality from IPS or whether this is just ZFS. Could you enlighten me with what you have in mind? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] I want to help, where do I start?
Hello, I've just started using OpenSolaris quite a bit at work, mainly it was in the form of NexentaStor but last week I took the decision to use OpenSolaris for our new projects, it took some time to make the decision as the first new server arrived on the very day that the ultimatum was handed to Oracle. But in the end I decided (and convinced my boss) that OpenSolaris was too vast a community for them to throw away. So I dived in. (Plus I love ZFS and DTrace too much to walk away from them) I've come from a Linux background (10+ years, +15 of Windows) and I've never seen such a portal for all things Linux like OpenSolaris.org is for all things (Open)Solaris, you guys have so many mailing lists it's unreal! Plus there are real experts here. I have posted issues and 30 minutes later I've had a response from a Oracle/Sun employee who's heavy involved in that bit of software giving me the answer to the issue. I just don't get that with Linux. Sometimes Linux support is the blind leading the blind (check out ubuntuforums for examples of that). You just don't get that with other Solaris based products either! (see the non-existent community edition support for NexentaStor) This community inspires me to get involved in a way I was never inspired with Linux. So where do I start? What part of this vast community needs man power? About me; I've been a (php) web developer for a while, I worked as a volunteer for the opensource project phpbb.com for many years. I was then involved in networking in the medical imaging field for a few years, then went into professional web development. But recently I took charge of the newly formed hosting department at my current company and I'm now in charge of a small (but rapidly growing) batch of servers (<20) of mixed OS's. I don't have much experience of C, beyond a few patches of Gnome I once did. I've also been toying with Java since an early age, but still consider myself an amateur. All of these things I'm ready and willing to get better at if those skills are needed. I've been reading some of the posts on this list, people seem to be scared, some have even lost their minds. I'm not scared, I don't see OpenSolaris going anywhere. So I'm ready to get started. Where am I need? Regards, - Daniel ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris/Opensolaris, for a Server, or Desktop?
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:18 PM, David Brodbeck wrote: > > > Is there any real reason to run compiz, other than so you can watch your > windows go up in flames or break into little tiny cubes when you close them? > That stuff sold Vista but I'm not convinced of its value on a *nix desktop, > other than the wow factor when doing demos. Well, one feature that definitely sells me is true transparency, so you can see through a terminal window to what's underneath. This means you can leave stuff running and can get visual feedback on its progress, while working on something else, all transparently. (As it were...) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GS on build 134
Hello, I'm very new to OpenSolaris but am quite familiar with FreeBSD. I have a box with an NVIDIA G96 GeForce 9500 GS. I installed 2009.06 and the installer choose the Xorg vesa driver. I have a working X desktop but colors and performance are unappealing. I ran pkg image-update and am now running svn_134. Xorg still uses the vesa driver and performance is worse than 2009.06. I did some googling and came across a thread (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=120352) in which someone suggested that one needs the R190 driver or better. Build 129 has this driver. If I'm not mistaken, build 134 should include this driver, but I have no success getting Xorg to start using the nvidia driver. I can supply exact error messages if necessary. Would appreciate any info and/or assistance. -- Regards, Doug P.S. Some cold, hard facts: bash$ uname -a SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris bash$ grep -i board /etc/X11/xorg* /etc/X11/xorg.Xorg.conf:BoardName "G96 [GeForce 9500 GS]" bash$ pfexec pkg search -l nvidia INDEX ACTION VALUE PACKAGE basenamedirusr/X11/include/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamedirusr/X11/lib/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamedirusr/X11/lib/modules/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamedirusr/X11/lib/modules/extensions/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamedirusr/share/doc/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamedirusr/share/icons/NVIDIA pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 description setNVIDIA Graphics System Software pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 pkg.description setX and OpenGL Drivers for NVIDIA Quadro graphics pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 pkg.summary setNVIDIA Graphics System Software pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 description setNvidia CK8-04 GE driver pkg:/driver/network/n...@0.5.11-0.134 description setNvidia ck804 pro / mcp55 pro combo SATA driver pkg:/driver/storage/nv_s...@0.5.11-0.134 pkg.description setNvidia CK8-04 GE driver pkg:/driver/network/n...@0.5.11-0.134 pkg.description setNvidia ck804 pro / mcp55 pro combo SATA driver pkg:/driver/storage/nv_s...@0.5.11-0.134 pkg.summary setNvidia CK8-04 GE driver pkg:/driver/network/n...@0.5.11-0.134 pkg.summary setNvidia ck804 pro / mcp55 pro combo SATA driver pkg:/driver/storage/nv_s...@0.5.11-0.134 driver_name driver nvidia pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamefile kernel/drv/amd64/nvidia pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 basenamefile kernel/drv/nvidia pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 fmrisetdriver/graphics/nvidia pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 pkg.fmrisetopensolaris.org/driver/graphics/nvidia pkg:/driver/graphics/nvi...@0.190.53-0.134 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
* Mike DeMarco (mikej...@yahoo.com) wrote: > Intent is to run a format as root to find out why when I go to do the install > it crashes when looking for disks. > > > From the install on the CD It does not give me the option of choosing > UFS/ZFS. I can find no way to create a raidZ filesystem spread across > my 6 sata drives. Everything I have tried so far to get it to start > the install has crashed in looking for Harddrive. I have been able to > install into a VirtualBox VM. Right, so you won't get an option to use UFS or ZFS. It's ZFS or nothing in OpenSolaris. You also can't install onto a raidz (or any other zfs configuration other than a single vdev). You can create a mirrored vdev after your initial installation but you won't get asked about that during installation you'll have to set it up after install (search google, it's quite easy to do). ZFS boot only supports mirrors and not raidz. Cheers, Glenn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
Apologies if this is thinking in another direction had a similar issue on an intel board and put it down to sata and pata configuration.You may want to check on intels page or your hardware manufacturer ? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Shawn, Joerg, Richard, et.al, IMO this is not the time or place to argue about this level of detail - like it or not, IPS is part of what we have and isn't going to magically go away anytime soon. Neither are SVr4 packages. What we don't have is an up to date buildable, downloadable, installable *community distro* that uses EITHER of those two technologies. It seems to me that our energies are better spent getting to the point where we have the above before we balkanize and fragment over whether or not it should have some particular feature :-) Crawl before we walk and Walk before we run. It seems rather pointless if we don't even try crawling or walking, but instead sit in front of our computers and bash each other about how things would be better if only we could run in different directions... -John On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > >> "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: >> > ... > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
On 07/19/10 03:53 AM, andrew wrote: ... So the big question is: will Solaris Next use IPS packaging? My money is on IPS packaging but a big fat CPIO-based DVD installation similar to S10 but using the new Caiman installers from OpenSolaris (local text and graphics-based installs plus via serial line, network and service processor consoles). If you've been watching the pkg-discuss mailing list, you'd note that the on-disk form for the image packaging system is already under development. And for the record, the chosen format is not CPIO. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: ... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? For those interested in learning more about the dependency solver use by pkg(5) (integrated in build 128), read more here: http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/satisfaction Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not > know what patch levels > >> are required or even what compiler to use. > > > Dennis Based on past info using SS 12/GCC: 1. Xorg 7.5: PASS 2. Binutils 2.20.1/GCC 4.5.0: PASS 3. ON snv_144 from ON_142: PASS 4. Coreutils 8.5: PASS 5. BASH 4.1.7: PASS Now that I reconfirmed the use of Sun Studio 12 for the process. Sun Studio 12.1 was not certified for current ON (i.e. snv_144) builds when I checked this awhile ago. I think this is very possible within a 72-hour period based on building the FOSS packages separately beforehand with GCC 4.x. Will try to post some screenshots this weekend (depends!). ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: A packaging system is a packaging system. IPS is nobody's favorite, but that's better than arguing the merits of rpm vs deb vs BSD ports vs ... The SVr4 packaging system understands http based URIs for the packages since 2006. It does support the knowledge on dependencies since a long time... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? Joerg, if you think that's all the SVr4 system is missing compared to pkg(5), then I think you need to take some time to find out more about the image packaging system. There is significantly more functionality provided. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
I might be interested in helping with something small. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
On 07/19/10 09:21 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: I know some work was done on ON to fix gcc 4.x build issues so that the Parfait static analyzer from Sun Labs could be run on the code, but don't know of anyone testing a full build with actual gcc 4.x compilers. I integrated those syntax fixes, in collaboration with the Sun Labs engineers. I haven't tested this for the past few builds, so it's possible that a new syntax problem has crept in. However, based on the last time I tried it, you should be able to build ON for x86 with gcc 4.x. Building for sparc requires syntax fixes in a handful of additional files I haven't integrated yet. Note that I'm talking about syntactic correctness only; I haven't tried to run the resulting binaries. Scott -- Scott Rotondo Senior Principal Engineer, Solaris Core OS Engineering President, Trusted Computing Group Phone: +1 650 786 6309 (Internal x86309) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > This was a result of broken PATH definitions that caused lint to be searched > in /opt/sunstudio12.1/sunstudio12.1/bin/lint which is really strange. > > I am going to give b130 a try with SS-12 if hacking > > ./usr/src/cmd/parted/parted.c > and > ./usr/src/lib/libast/common/comp/setlocale.c > > was not sufficient... B130 did compile with SS-12.1 after fixing both above files. There are still 27 unneeded make errors from badly designed make commands that try to clean up the perl 5.8.4 source tree. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
ken mays wrote: > See for ref: > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/build_instr > > We were using GCC 3.x to compile ON snv_144 and the X consolidation. Still > considered a the preferred method for the community members? I don't think it's ever been preferred, just an option for those who could not or did not want to use the Studio compilers. It won't match the binaries we build, test, and release. > Also, I did remember a note about using GCC 4.x to build ON and the X > consolidation as well in the future. Is this tested by anyone at Oracle > Engineering? We do not test building X with gcc 4.x - only the gcc 3.4.3 from SFW, and that only for the portions that cannot be built with Sun Studio. I would imagine X can be built with gcc 4.x due to upstream work, but have never tested it. I know some work was done on ON to fix gcc 4.x build issues so that the Parfait static analyzer from Sun Labs could be run on the code, but don't know of anyone testing a full build with actual gcc 4.x compilers. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
--- On Mon, 7/19/10, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > From: Alan Coopersmith > Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale > To: dcla...@blastwave.org > Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 11:17 AM > Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know > what patch levels are > > required or even what compiler to use. > > As always, it's documented on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/downloads/on > > > I will try with Sun Studio 12.1 > > with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use > 12.1 when that > > compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU > make or libgcrypt > > without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] > output but it seems > > able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not > withstanding it does seem > > to be the compiler to use. > > Not yet for building the OS. Studio 12 is > still required - we're testing > a new patchset of Studio 12.1 now for building the OS and > hope to be able > to switch to it soon, but until then, the official build > environment is still > Studio 12 (except that ON uses lint, and only lint, from > 12u1). > > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/sun_studio_12_tools > has the set to use for now. > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- > alan.coopersm...@oracle.com > Oracle Solaris Platform > Engineering: X Window System Hi Alan, Please correct me. See for ref: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/build_instr We were using GCC 3.x to compile ON snv_144 and the X consolidation. Still considered a the preferred method for the community members? Also, I did remember a note about using GCC 4.x to build ON and the X consolidation as well in the future. Is this tested by anyone at Oracle Engineering? ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels >> are required or even what compiler to use. > > As always, it's documented on > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/downloads/on That page is wrong. Or at least not entirely correct. I built this : $ uname -a SunOS aequitas 5.11 snv_138 i86pc i386 i86pc with this : $ cc -V cc: Sun C 5.10 SunOS_i386 Patch 142363-05 2010/04/28 usage: cc [ options] files. Use 'cc -flags' for details The nightly report was clean. I went through this with various people and exchanged emails about it and I'm tired of talking about it. The docs on the Oracle sites are wrong or slightly wrong or slightly correct. I'm not going down that path again .. I'm tired of it and I'm not going to file any more bug reports. I'm sure that Jörg and I can figure it out and who knows, maybe even come up with something that people can use with docs on a site that is community based. All the Xorg bits will come after the ON bits are building neatly. Probably GCC can do that. >> I will try with Sun Studio 12.1 >> with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use 12.1 when that >> compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU make or libgcrypt >> without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] output but it >> seems >> able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not withstanding it does >> seem >> to be the compiler to use. > > Not yet for building the OS. Studio 12 is still required - we're testing > a new patchset of Studio 12.1 now for building the OS and hope to be able > to switch to it soon, but until then, the official build environment is > still Studio 12 (except that ON uses lint, and only lint, from 12u1). > > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/sun_studio_12_tools > has the set to use for now. Well I'll be using 12.1 entirely for ON and see what happens. Maybe it works. Maybe it fails. I would be far happier at this point with a decent GCC but my Solaris Application Dev books from Mr. Gove and the Solaris Internals books from McDougall and Mauro et. al. tell me the Studio compilers are the way to go. I do believe them even if it is somewhat mysterious, closed and proprietary. -- Dennis ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
Dennis Clarke wrote: > Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels are > required or even what compiler to use. As always, it's documented on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/downloads/on > I will try with Sun Studio 12.1 > with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use 12.1 when that > compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU make or libgcrypt > without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] output but it seems > able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not withstanding it does seem > to be the compiler to use. Not yet for building the OS. Studio 12 is still required - we're testing a new patchset of Studio 12.1 now for building the OS and hope to be able to switch to it soon, but until then, the official build environment is still Studio 12 (except that ON uses lint, and only lint, from 12u1). http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/sun_studio_12_tools has the set to use for now. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> > CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO >> archive format >> > Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file >> size. >> >> So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, >> there is >> something seriously wrong. > > Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years? I don't think that a complete Xorg implementaion is that large at all. However, you and I were chatting about these things and I think for now the focus should be on the lower level issues like basic ON and utils and a compiler. >> > It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other >> > archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new >> > that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. >> >> Using cpio in the installs is hardly new. > > I was replying to a person who proposed to use cpio for something new. no. Just .. no. > I know that some people at Sun did like to use cpio because they rely on > undocumented features in the Sun cpio implementation. I recommend to > better > use "star -install ..." as this is a documented feature that grants you to > replace life existing binaries wihout a crash. We both know that works very well and it is open and standards compliant. About your issues with lint and b134. I was able to build b138 without too much problem but I started incrementatlly from the last SXCE b130 and then went to b134 and then b138. You have access to that server in the Blastwave server farm and so you know this already. I install the compilers into a somewhat non-standard path and then make a symlink hack to adjust search paths. This has worked well for me. Getting to b144 may be a challenge as I do not know what patch levels are required or even what compiler to use. I will try with Sun Studio 12.1 with all latest patches. I have no idea why people use 12.1 when that compiler is unable to build simple things like GNU make or libgcrypt without blowing up on its own intermediate assembly[1] output but it seems able to build ON. My disdain for Studio 12.1 not withstanding it does seem to be the compiler to use. -- Dennis [1] I have seen this over and over and its just sad really. /opt/studio/SOS12.1/SUNWspro/bin/cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. \ -I../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher -I.. -I../src \ -I../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/src -I/opt/csw/include \ -I/opt/csw/include -m64 -xarch=sse2 -erroff=%all -g -nofstore \ -Qy -Xa -xbuiltin=%none -xmodel=medium -xnolibmil -xnolibmopt \ -Kpic -xildoff -xregs=no%frameptr -xs -xstrconst \ -D_TS_ERRNO -c ../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher/cipher.c \ -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/cipher.o Assembler: "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5753 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5831 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 5915 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6016 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6114 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6191 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6275 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6376 : Syntax error Near line: "movl %eax" "/tmp/yabeAAAmcaq8V", line 6561 : Syntax error Near line: "movl%edx, " Failure in /opt/sunstudio12.1/prod/bin/fbe, status = 0x7f00 Fatal Error exec'ing /opt/sunstudio12.1/prod/bin/fbe cc: acomp failed for ../../../../libgcrypt-1.4.6/cipher/cipher.c gmake[2]: *** [cipher.lo] Error 1 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/export/medusa/dclarke/build/libgcrypt/i386/1.4.6/amd64_SOS12.1_try2/cipher' gmake[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/export/medusa/dclarke/build/libgcrypt/i386/1.4.6/amd64_SOS12.1_try2' gmake: *** [all] Error 2 This is nothing new to me. Studio 12 works but 12.1 fails in so many ways in so many places it is just scary. GCC 4.x works fine. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Transfered 23 GB over SCP from USA to Germany
Stephan Ferraro wrote: > One question: The "scp" command I use on OpenSolaris is from Sun and not > OpenSSH? OpenSolaris uses "Sun SSH", which is based on OpenSSH, but with many changes applied. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> > CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive > format > Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, there is something seriously wrong. >>> Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years? >> -r-sr-xr-x 1 root bin 2.9M Jul 13 10:01 /usr/bin/amd64/Xorg* >> >> I can't imagine it growing 2048 times larger in the near future. > > We will never need more than 640 G of RAM. I didn't say "never" - but not in the "Solaris Next timescale". >> Having files that big would certainly kill the CD media installer, and >> probably >> the DVD one too, but we're not yet ready to move to BluRay install media. > > Solaris can of course use BluRay media as there is cdrtools. But so few machines on which it will be installed have BluRay drives that it's not yet an option for the install media itself. Fortunately, we don't need to worry about that yet. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Transfered 23 GB over SCP from USA to Germany
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, J�rgen Keil wrote: > > >> > The differences reported by cmp -l are in octal; > >> > so this is actually a single bit error. > >> > >> But then TCP checksums should discover the problem > > > >That bit could have fllipped both on the sending > >or the receiving machine (before or after TCP is > >used). > > I agree. Given that recent versions of OpenSSH > H prefer AES-CTR to > AES-CBC it could really happen that one flipped bit > in the cipher text One question: The "scp" command I use on OpenSolaris is from Sun and not OpenSSH? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
Alan Coopersmith wrote: > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > >>> CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive > >>> format > >>> Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. > >> So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, there is > >> something seriously wrong. > > > > Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years? > > -r-sr-xr-x 1 root bin 2.9M Jul 13 10:01 /usr/bin/amd64/Xorg* > > I can't imagine it growing 2048 times larger in the near future. We will never need more than 640 G of RAM. > Having files that big would certainly kill the CD media installer, and > probably > the DVD one too, but we're not yet ready to move to BluRay install media. Solaris can of course use BluRay media as there is cdrtools. There is a smaller problem with the fact that there is no large file support in ISO-9660, but there is still large file support in the UDF implementation of Solaris. With cdrtools, you may already create a 50 GB install medium and if the BDX spec is compatible to BD, this will even work with media up to 128 GB. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >>> CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive >>> format >>> Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. >> So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, there is >> something seriously wrong. > > Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years? -r-sr-xr-x 1 root bin 2.9M Jul 13 10:01 /usr/bin/amd64/Xorg* I can't imagine it growing 2048 times larger in the near future. Having files that big would certainly kill the CD media installer, and probably the DVD one too, but we're not yet ready to move to BluRay install media. >>> It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other >>> archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new >>> that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. >> Using cpio in the installs is hardly new. > > I was replying to a person who proposed to use cpio for something new. No, he was simply referring to the OS install cd's, which have used cpio for a long time. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive > > format > > Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. > > So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, there is > something seriously wrong. Are you sure about the size of the Xorg binary in 5 years? > > It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other > > archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new > > that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. > > Using cpio in the installs is hardly new. I was replying to a person who proposed to use cpio for something new. I know that some people at Sun did like to use cpio because they rely on undocumented features in the Sun cpio implementation. I recommend to better use "star -install ..." as this is a documented feature that grants you to replace life existing binaries wihout a crash. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Alan Coopersmith wrote: > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > > I am currently bit enervated as I installed the SS-12.1 tarbarll > > as noted on the website but I still get compiler errors from > > compiling b130 on SXCE b130. > > Studio 12u1 should give you build errors on that build. The sources > weren't fixed to build with 12u1 until more recently than that, and > they're still testing the results before sending out the notice that > it's time to switch. Only the lint from 12u1 was to be used with ON > prior to that notice. OK, I did just check again and it seems that I was confused by the statements on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/sun_studio_tools as a result of the fact that build 138 does not compile with SS-12.1 in my first check. This was a result of broken PATH definitions that caused lint to be searched in /opt/sunstudio12.1/sunstudio12.1/bin/lint which is really strange. I am going to give b130 a try with SS-12 if hacking ./usr/src/cmd/parted/parted.c and ./usr/src/lib/libast/common/comp/setlocale.c was not sufficient... Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > andrew wrote: >> So instead of OpenSolaris installing just one CD's worth via CPIO, you will >> have a Solaris Next DVD running the Caiman installer doing CPIO-based >> installations of a whole DVD worth of IPS packages. Or perhaps Oracle will >> manage to get an IPS-based installer working fast enough to be viable as the >> OS installer itself, which would enable more fine-grained control of which >> software to install from the DVD. > Why are you interested in CPIO? > > CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive format > Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. So? If the OS installer is unpacking any files larger than 4gb, there is something seriously wrong. > It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other > archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new > that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. Using cpio in the installs is hardly new. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > I am currently bit enervated as I installed the SS-12.1 tarbarll > as noted on the website but I still get compiler errors from > compiling b130 on SXCE b130. Studio 12u1 should give you build errors on that build. The sources weren't fixed to build with 12u1 until more recently than that, and they're still testing the results before sending out the notice that it's time to switch. Only the lint from 12u1 was to be used with ON prior to that notice. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
Typo, not "Su", but "So", sorry for the confusion... ;-) Matthias I (Matthias Pfützner) wrote: > Su, > > if you already have the LiveCD up and running, > > open a Terminal > type > pfexec su - > > and you have a root shell... ;-) > > Matthias > > You (Mike DeMarco) wrote: > > Intent is to run a format as root to find out why when I go to do the > > install it crashes when looking for disks. > > > > > > >From the install on the CD It does not give me the option of choosing > > >UFS/ZFS. I can find no way to create a raidZ filesystem spread across my 6 > > >sata drives. Everything I have tried so far to get it to start the install > > >has crashed in looking for Harddrive. I have been able to install into a > > >VirtualBox VM. > > -- > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > > ___ > > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > > > > -- > Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Nichts ist ohne sein > Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | Gegenteil wahr. > D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | > Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Martin Walser > -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Nichts ist ohne sein Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | Gegenteil wahr. D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Martin Walser ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
Su, if you already have the LiveCD up and running, open a Terminal type pfexec su - and you have a root shell... ;-) Matthias You (Mike DeMarco) wrote: > Intent is to run a format as root to find out why when I go to do the install > it crashes when looking for disks. > > > >From the install on the CD It does not give me the option of choosing > >UFS/ZFS. I can find no way to create a raidZ filesystem spread across my 6 > >sata drives. Everything I have tried so far to get it to start the install > >has crashed in looking for Harddrive. I have been able to install into a > >VirtualBox VM. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > -- Matthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Nichts ist ohne sein Lichtenbergstr.73 | mailto:matth...@pfuetzner.de | Gegenteil wahr. D-64289 Darmstadt | AIM: pfuetz, ICQ: 300967487 | Germany | http://www.pfuetzner.de/matthias/ | Martin Walser ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
> > And you might want to check for the Release notes for > build 134, there's a bug > in there, that puts you into a reboot-loop. Basically > you need to perform two > things: rebuild the "ram-boot-disk", that can be done > from an older (in your > case, also the love CD!) running version, and second, > in the menu.lst file of > the grub bootloader, you should change the > console=graphics into a > console=text. > > But for details, as I didn't now look them up, check > the release notes of > build134... Thanks, Don't think I am getting that far. I boot the LiveCd but at the very start of the Install it Crashes. I have not even had the chance to select which harddrive to install to. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Build 134
Intent is to run a format as root to find out why when I go to do the install it crashes when looking for disks. >From the install on the CD It does not give me the option of choosing UFS/ZFS. >I can find no way to create a raidZ filesystem spread across my 6 sata drives. >Everything I have tried so far to get it to start the install has crashed in >looking for Harddrive. I have been able to install into a VirtualBox VM. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Transfered 23 GB over SCP from USA to Germany
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Jürgen Keil wrote: >> > The differences reported by cmp -l are in octal; >> > so this is actually a single bit error. >> >> But then TCP checksums should discover the problem > >That bit could have fllipped both on the sending >or the receiving machine (before or after TCP is >used). I agree. Given that recent versions of OpenSSH prefer AES-CTR to AES-CBC it could really happen that one flipped bit in the cipher text would flip just one bit in the plain text. Aside from the fact that, as already mentioned, TCP checksum would detect one flipped bit, I do not believe that the strong integrity protection in the SSH protocol could fail occasionally. It's more like once in a lifetime situation. I believe the issue has nothing to do with SSH. An easy way to verify that would be to use "-o Ciphers=aes128-cbc" on the client side. Note that on OpenSolaris, "aes128-cbc" would have to be added to the cipher list on the server side as well since it's not allowed by default. If one bit is flipped in data encrypted with the CBC mode before it is decrypted then after decryption it would corrupt all bytes in 2 adjacent cipher blocks which is 32 bytes in total. if the plain text is corrupted before being encrypted with CBC, all transferred data after the first flipped bit will be corrupted. I think the problem happens on the remote machine after the data is decrypted and it's not a problem in SSH since it does work with 8KB data chunks. I don't see how it could corrupt just one bit before writing the data to the disk. J. -- Jan Pechanec http://blogs.sun.com/janp ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
andrew wrote: > So the big question is: will Solaris Next use IPS packaging? My money is on > IPS packaging but a big fat CPIO-based DVD installation similar to S10 but > using the new Caiman installers from OpenSolaris (local text and > graphics-based installs plus via serial line, network and service processor > consoles). > > So instead of OpenSolaris installing just one CD's worth via CPIO, you will > have a Solaris Next DVD running the Caiman installer doing CPIO-based > installations of a whole DVD worth of IPS packages. Or perhaps Oracle will > manage to get an IPS-based installer working fast enough to be viable as the > OS installer itself, which would enable more fine-grained control of which > software to install from the DVD. > > As I said above, this is pure speculation based on some of the noises coming > out of Oracle right now. In my view Sun waited too long between the release > of Solaris 10 and Solaris Next. Solaris Next should have been released in > 2009, in my view. Why are you interested in CPIO? CPIO is limited to 8 GB files and the (non-POSIX ... SVR4) CPIO archive format Solaris is currently using by default is even limited to 4 GB file size. It has been shown already that pkgadd can be enhanced to use other archive types and I am strongly against introducing something new that is based n the outdated (since y-2001) CPIO. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
Time for some crystal ball gazing folks. I reckon beta 1 of Solaris Next will be announced at Oracle Open World. Beta 2 will follow within 3 to 6 months, and by this time next year we will have Solaris Next FCS. I'm hoping Oracle are currently working on providing a smooth migration path from Solaris 10 to Solaris Next that doesn't involve dumping an existing S10 system into an S10 branded zone on Sol_Next. So the big question is: will Solaris Next use IPS packaging? My money is on IPS packaging but a big fat CPIO-based DVD installation similar to S10 but using the new Caiman installers from OpenSolaris (local text and graphics-based installs plus via serial line, network and service processor consoles). So instead of OpenSolaris installing just one CD's worth via CPIO, you will have a Solaris Next DVD running the Caiman installer doing CPIO-based installations of a whole DVD worth of IPS packages. Or perhaps Oracle will manage to get an IPS-based installer working fast enough to be viable as the OS installer itself, which would enable more fine-grained control of which software to install from the DVD. As I said above, this is pure speculation based on some of the noises coming out of Oracle right now. In my view Sun waited too long between the release of Solaris 10 and Solaris Next. Solaris Next should have been released in 2009, in my view. Cheers Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: > A packaging system is a packaging system. IPS is nobody's favorite, > but that's better than arguing the merits of rpm vs deb vs BSD ports vs ... The SVr4 packaging system understands http based URIs for the packages since 2006. It does support the knowledge on dependencies since a long time... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: > Ok, fine. But what do the internal developers use to build on? > > Until Indiana was self-hosting, they built on SXCE. > AFAIK, once Indiana was self-hosting, they built on it. > > Some (no doubt not all) would like to stay in sync with what they're > building on, as much as possible. > > How well will a community distro be able to do that? A community distro will need to fix a lot in the build system. I still do not understand why Sun did vever fix the build system. The current need of so called "flag days" is no more than a result of a bad build system. A build system that is self hosting does not depend on a specific underlying OS. I am currently bit enervated as I installed the SS-12.1 tarbarll as noted on the website but I still get compiler errors from compiling b130 on SXCE b130. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
"W. Wayne Liauh" wrote: > One of the most distinguishing advantages of IPS which is also one of the > best selling points of OpenSolaris, is that, after you do an image-update to > a newer version of OpenSolaris, your current version will be persevered as > one of the dual-boot options during a reboot. I know I have talked several > Ubuntu users to take a look at OpenSolaris exactly because of this > ZFS-associated feature. Well I don't see this as a IPS feature but as a ZFS feature. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
"W. Wayne Liauh" wrote: > One of the biggest problems with all of our community distros is that they > are not compatible with IPS. This problem is further complicated by the fact > that Sun's own OpenSolaris distro does not allow multiple boot with other > Solaris-based OS. I don't see this to be a problem. Sun/Oracle did apply a lot of thanges that are against the interest of many people from the community I know. There is a need to start some more work in future anyway. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
Shawn Walker wrote: > > The big problem with IPS is that there is no migration strategy, so it may > > be > > better to not migrate. > > That depends on what you define as "migration" and what your specific > needs are. If you did ever migrate software from one technology to another, you know... Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
