Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Mike Gerdts writes: > Good starting points are: > > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+indiana/building_on > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/downloads#HBuildingOpenSolaris Thanks .. great clues. I noticed at the first URL the author made the mistake often made, that everyone in the world knows what he's talking about... and thereby never bothers to tell the reader what `ON' means. Looks like a title like: Building and testing ON on the OpenSolaris Distribution Would demand at a minimum that the author say what `ON' is. But this seems like an excellent start... thanks again. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: > Mike Gerdts writes: > >> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: >> >>> All that said, I'm still a little mystified as to why the "normal" >>> development builds are being held back. >> >> Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well >> going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is >> untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? Or could there be other >> things (e.g zfs version 23 in b135) that would make going back to >> b134b problematic? If so, I suspect that this is a matter of >> protecting people from getting into a state where they can't >> transition from a dev build to a release build. >> >> People that really want to do development can (subject to periodic >> hiccups) do development on current bits by building their own. > > Sorry to side track a little here... I've seen that mentioned in > several places recently, about building from sources. > > I wondered if there is a cache of info about doing that somewhere? > Maybe some basic instructions or general outline of how to go at it? Good starting points are: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+indiana/building_on http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Main/downloads#HBuildingOpenSolaris When you stumble trying to follow these processes (some of which will be slightly out of date at any given time) it is best to ask for help at tools-discuss, on-discuss, or another list where the developers are more likely to hang out. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Mike Gerdts writes: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > >> All that said, I'm still a little mystified as to why the "normal" >> development builds are being held back. > > Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well > going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is > untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? Or could there be other > things (e.g zfs version 23 in b135) that would make going back to > b134b problematic? If so, I suspect that this is a matter of > protecting people from getting into a state where they can't > transition from a dev build to a release build. > > People that really want to do development can (subject to periodic > hiccups) do development on current bits by building their own. Sorry to side track a little here... I've seen that mentioned in several places recently, about building from sources. I wondered if there is a cache of info about doing that somewhere? Maybe some basic instructions or general outline of how to go at it? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > > > End-of-fiscal-year is May 31 at Oracle, so I (wish/think/hope/assume) we're > due for a flurry of announcements come June 1. Erik, Is it June 1, 2010 ? Sorry couldn't help it... -- Regards, Cyril ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 31 May 2010, at 12:55, homerun wrote: > If it is now "nailed" that next release is based on 134b what is a reason not > to publish 134a build to dev repo ? If there's a 134b, one might presume it's because 134a wasn't stable enough to release. In which case, it's unlikely to be of much use to anyone who already has access to b134. It's also happened before that respins have been required to resolve legal or licensing issues that were only spotted after the build. If such issues existed in 134a, its release wouldn't be permitted by Oracle anyway. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Oracle Corporation, Ireland mailto:calum.ben...@oracle.com Solaris Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Oracle Corp. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Greetings If it is now "nailed" that next release is based on 134b what is a reason not to publish 134a build to dev repo ? Really been waiting next release to be reality. Been run Solaris / Opensolaris +10 years and have to say patience is now close to end. Information flow almost zero , etc... That basicly mean .. been starting to seak another possible OS to home server ... just hope oracle shape up and take also endusers into account -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Hi ! Le 30 mai 2010 à 01:59, bsd a écrit : > If there is active development of OpenSolaris, why does the dev repository > catalog have a last update of March 6, 2010? > > I'm having trouble with building VirtualBox on FreeBSD, so I wanted to > install build 129, then update to the lastest dev build. However, if the > latest dev build is from March and is the iso image on genunix, then I won't > bother, because it didn't work then, so it won't work now. > > I expected the dev build to be around 138 right now, but wouldn't the catalog > be updated on the repository? The most frustrating thing is that snv_14x is somewhere out, but "dev" repo, is in fact a freezed repo and it seems that OpenSolaris is getting more Closed or Freezed Solaris since Sun is named Oracle... I feel like lots of people very frustrated the "now news" about that. Even if snv_134 is a quite stable... I daring to test new build... Xavier -- Xavier Beaudouin - x...@soprive.net - http://www.soprive.net/ So Privé - Le premier acteur dédié au cloud computing en France GPG Fingerprints : A6B2 D563 F93B A3AF C08A CBAC 6BC6 79EB DCC9 9867 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Thanks Eric (and some of the others who replied.) "For RC work, the Bazaar method is much less useful (and, can be detrimental to schedules), so it's better to keep the RC work strictly inside the developer community, and exclude the user community for the short period of time it takes to produce a Release." If Oracle would provide this type of information to the wider community they would incur a lot less FUD in the press and forums. I believe the silence coming out of Oracle adds to the problem. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 05/30/10 03:25 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Mike Gerdts wrote: Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? pkg is known not to work at all for installing backwards, by design. Going backwards is done by reverting to old boot environments you preserved. If you suspect you may want to go back, keep around a boot environment for the oldest release you may want to go back to. Once there you can re-upgrade to an intermediate build if needed. Indeed, it is not intended to work going backwards; only forwards. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Paul Harper wrote: > Whatever happened to 'Release early and release often'? > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html > > 2010.?? will be full of preventable bugs because users will not have been > giving feedback to the developers. 2010.05 (or 2010.06 at this point) is going to be based on snv_134b, which is the current /dev build with critical fixes backported. For my uses, 134 has been pretty stable thus far. There are a few show-stopper bugs (like the failure to boot when part of a mirrored root is missing) but I haven not encountered any other major bugs. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Mike Gerdts wrote: > Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well > going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is > untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? pkg is known not to work at all for installing backwards, by design. Going backwards is done by reverting to old boot environments you preserved. If you suspect you may want to go back, keep around a boot environment for the oldest release you may want to go back to. Once there you can re-upgrade to an intermediate build if needed. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Erik Trimble wrote: > Actually, on mature reflection, I'm guessing that the reason actual > built binary development releases aren't available right now is that all > equipment usually used for such a build is occupied with QA for the RC. Nope - we have separate systems for build & QA, and the binaries are being built on schedule. -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 30 May 2010, at 17:27, Calum Benson wrote: > > Plenty of users have been giving feedback on b134 since March, so there's no > reason that any critical issues they reported (and probably some non-critical > ones too) shouldn't be fixed in 2010.??. (Well, "no reason" other than a decision by the powers that be to downgrade, defer, and/or release note, of course...) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Oracle Corporation, Ireland mailto:calum.ben...@oracle.com Solaris Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Oracle Corp. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 30 May 2010, at 07:58, Paul Harper wrote: > Whatever happened to 'Release early and release often'? > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html > > 2010.?? will be full of preventable bugs because users will not have been > giving feedback to the developers. Plenty of users have been giving feedback on b134 since March, so there's no reason that any critical issues they reported (and probably some non-critical ones too) shouldn't be fixed in 2010.??. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Interaction Designer Oracle Corporation, Ireland mailto:calum.ben...@oracle.com Solaris Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Oracle Corp. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
I know I'm off topic again but I'd still like to better understand. I just went a round with pkg publisher & 2009.06. I was trying for the release repo in my e521 dell which the broadcom lan is not recognized. I did finally get it by changing origins to http://localhost/ & pkg publisher to opensolaris ; no .org. Previously working with sxce I was always unknown & unqualified which is right I'm not a professional. Now the hostname is opensolaris. IS this significant ?? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > > > All that said, I'm still a little mystified as to why the "normal" > > development builds are being held back. > > Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well > going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is > untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? Or could there be other > things (e.g zfs version 23 in b135) that would make going back to > b134b problematic? If so, I suspect that this is a matter of > protecting people from getting into a state where they can't > transition from a dev build to a release build. I think that is pretty weak excuse. The same people didn't need such protection for all the time since 2009.06, bu all of a sadden they do need it ? Think about it. Those people who want to live on a bleeding edge, are clever/experienced enough to know how to manage their boot environments. And those who didn't need a hot_just_from_the_oven release stayed with 2009.06 and won't be affected anyhow. > People that really want to do development can (subject to periodic > hiccups) do development on current bits by building their own. Yup, that's right. However, I think that the idea of development release is to make it _easier_ for people to get on, rather than making it harder. There are more folks out there that need dev release to bootstrap, than those who can manage to build it themseves. Otherwise why to bother publishing developer build at all ? Just my thoughts. -- Regards, Cyril ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > All that said, I'm still a little mystified as to why the "normal" > development builds are being held back. Could it be because "pkg image update" is known to work pretty well going forward (b134 -> b134b) but is known not to work well or is untested for going backward (b142 -> b134b)? Or could there be other things (e.g zfs version 23 in b135) that would make going back to b134b problematic? If so, I suspect that this is a matter of protecting people from getting into a state where they can't transition from a dev build to a release build. People that really want to do development can (subject to periodic hiccups) do development on current bits by building their own. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 5/30/2010 1:14 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: On 5/29/2010 9:09 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next release cut from that. Even though the release hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all development has stopped and there aren't any updates to dev. So all you can get right now is build 134 and that's it until the next release? I see 142 source out there. Just no binaries until the pending release. I'm sure you can manage to complain until then... Actually, on mature reflection, I'm guessing that the reason actual built binary development releases aren't available right now is that all equipment usually used for such a build is occupied with QA for the RC. And, in the split-second after I hit the send button on that message, the glaringly obvious hit me over the head - that's not true, either. So, nevermind. Everyone will just have to accept that binaries for the development builds aren't available yet, though source is. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 5/29/2010 9:09 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next release cut from that. Even though the release hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all development has stopped and there aren't any updates to dev. So all you can get right now is build 134 and that's it until the next release? I see 142 source out there. Just no binaries until the pending release. I'm sure you can manage to complain until then... Actually, on mature reflection, I'm guessing that the reason actual built binary development releases aren't available right now is that all equipment usually used for such a build is occupied with QA for the RC. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 5/29/2010 11:58 PM, Paul Harper wrote: Whatever happened to 'Release early and release often'? http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html 2010.?? will be full of preventable bugs because users will not have been giving feedback to the developers. Yeah, and the 'release early, release often' method has worked s well for other free softwares' quality (*cough* Fedora *cough* Ubuntu *cough* Gnome). Essentially what's going on for the RC is that there has been a determination *which* bugs are critical to get fixed, and the fix process is limited to those bugs, and extensive QA runs are being done on the whole thing - QA that is too intensive to be done on "normal" development builds. So, the list of "bugs-to-be-fixed" is pre-defined at the start of the RC process, and only those bugs found out in the QA test cycle *might* also get fixed. User-reported bugs from RC betas wouldn't get fixed in any case, so why bother producing them? Its just a distraction for developers. ESR's theory works best on software where there aren't already extensive test harnesses, *and* when the amount of work required to diagnose and fix user-reported bugs won't impact schedules. That is, the C&B method works best with software that doesn't have a tight, fixed schedule. People forget that bugs take time to diagnose and make a determination of their importance, time which may not be available in a fixed schedule project. OpenSolaris adheres to the B of C&B during normal development build cycle (why else release intermediary builds except to have it tested by outsiders?). For RC work, the Bazaar method is much less useful (and, can be detrimental to schedules), so it's better to keep the RC work strictly inside the developer community, and exclude the user community for the short period of time it takes to produce a Release. All that said, I'm still a little mystified as to why the "normal" development builds are being held back. (and, note: I'm not 100% sure that the RC process is the above. What I describe is how we do it in the JDK, and I'm making some (probably accurate) extrapolations to the Solaris group.) And, of course, I don't speak for Oracle in any way, and have no non-public knowledge specific to the Solaris group's work. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
Whatever happened to 'Release early and release often'? http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html 2010.?? will be full of preventable bugs because users will not have been giving feedback to the developers. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
bsd wrote: > I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next release cut from that. > Even though the release hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all > development has stopped and there aren't any updates to dev. Development hasn't stopped, just the updating of the /dev repo. Source code commits continue and you can check them out from the hg/svn repos and build them if you want newer 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] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
> I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. > > I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next > release cut from that. Even though the release > hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all > development has stopped and there aren't any updates > to dev. > > So all you can get right now is build 134 and that's > it until the next release? I see 142 source out there. Just no binaries until the pending release. I'm sure you can manage to complain until then... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 5/29/2010 8:16 PM, bsd wrote: I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next release cut from that. Even though the release hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all development has stopped and there aren't any updates to dev. So all you can get right now is build 134 and that's it until the next release? Yup, for now. Builds of both the RC and normal developer releases are ongoing, but the latter haven't been posted externally. I have no idea why (really, I don't know). But actual development is still going on, as well as the release train stabilization work. End-of-fiscal-year is May 31 at Oracle, so I (wish/think/hope/assume) we're due for a flurry of announcements come June 1. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I know that build 134 was to be frozen and the next release cut from that. Even though the release hasn't been distributed, I didn't know that all development has stopped and there aren't any updates to dev. So all you can get right now is build 134 and that's it until the next release? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 05/30/10 11:59 AM, bsd wrote: If there is active development of OpenSolaris, why does the dev repository catalog have a last update of March 6, 2010? That's already been answered as I'm sure you know. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
If there is active development of OpenSolaris, why does the dev repository catalog have a last update of March 6, 2010? I'm having trouble with building VirtualBox on FreeBSD, so I wanted to install build 129, then update to the lastest dev build. However, if the latest dev build is from March and is the iso image on genunix, then I won't bother, because it didn't work then, so it won't work now. I expected the dev build to be around 138 right now, but wouldn't the catalog be updated on the repository? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
