Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
> Happy New Year all. Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or is it > dead? > --ron I hope not. They should probably just skip snv_130 and go straight to snv_131 if the Solaris Express version is going to be anywhere near as buggy as the bleeding edge Indiana version was. If they skipped snv_130 it might save you the wasted time and effort of using live upgrade to upgrade in to a buggy system. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
On 12/31/09 03:11 PM, Anon Y Mous wrote: Happy New Year all. Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or is it dead? --ron I hope not. They should probably just skip snv_130 and go straight to snv_131 if the Solaris Express version is going to be anywhere near as buggy as the bleeding edge Indiana version was. If they skipped snv_130 it might save you the wasted time and effort of using live upgrade to upgrade in to a buggy system. In general, the OpenSolaris 200x releases and SXCE releases will have the same issues since the Indiana releases. Where unique issues do arise are in the subsystems that have changed. I should also note that many users are able to run b130 without issue, or with relatively minor workarounds. I'm one of them; it worked first boot. -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
On 12/31/2009 10:49 AM, Ron Halstead wrote: Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or is it dead? Last I heard SXCE 130 was planned for release after the Sun US employees responsible for the release get back into the office next week. (Sun's US offices are closed for a winter holiday break from Dec. 25 - Jan. 1, so all this week.) 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
On 12/31/2009 1:11 PM, Anon Y Mous wrote: Happy New Year all. Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or is it dead? --ron I hope not. They should probably just skip snv_130 and go straight to snv_131 if the Solaris Express version is going to be anywhere near as buggy as the bleeding edge Indiana version was. If they skipped snv_130 it might save you the wasted time and effort of using live upgrade to upgrade in to a buggy system. Skipping 130 won't give you SXCE 131, it would just end the SXCE line at 129 instead. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
Shawn Walker wrote: > I should also note that many users are able to run b130 without issue, > or with relatively minor workarounds. I'm one of them; it worked first > boot. It depends... While it was possible to run Solaris versions from 2009 on Dell (based on Intel Chipsets but not using Intel graphics) if you did not like to use your Logitech Pro-9000 camera, it was de-facto impossible to use versions from 2009 on a typical Lenovo laptop that includes Intel graphics. I expect that a version is available again soon that gives us again the usability of Solaris from 2008, where the vast mayority of the SXCE versions have been usable. I hope that such a fixed version is also available as SXCE. 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] snv_130
Happy new year every1! > 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. Cheers -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: v...@bb-c.de Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
>Happy new year every1! > > >> 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announc= >ed. > >Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE >can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE >could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. I've noticed that more and more things have stopped working in SXCE; specifically X which is now only partially delivered (no Xnest) and, unfortunately, GDM was upgraded so getting Sun Ray to work is impossible, it seems, except by using dtlogin. The time you need to install OpenSolaris is much larger than installing SXCE, mostly trying to find which packages you've missed this time. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
> I've noticed that more and more things have stopped working in SXCE; > specifically X which is now only partially delivered (no Xnest) and, > unfortunately, GDM was upgraded so getting Sun Ray to work is impossible, > it seems, except by using dtlogin. Hmmm... what would you consider the version of SXCE "most worthwile"? Which should I keep? :-) Thanks -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: v...@bb-c.de Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
[...] > I've noticed that more and more things have stopped > working in SXCE; > specifically X which is now only partially delivered > (no Xnest) and, [...] Isn't Xephyr there? In a number of situations, that's worked better for me than Xnest. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
Volker A. Brandt wrote: > Happy new year every1! > > >> 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. > > Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE > can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE > could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. The problem is it's dividing our attention - by ending SXCE at 130, that concentrates all testing and development on OpenSolaris for builds 131-136 for the OpenSolaris 2010.03 release. And once ON converts it's gate to build IPS packages instead of SVR4, it won't be possible to build SXCE anymore, since they're not planning on maintaining two sets of packaging metadata in the ON gate. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
casper@sun.com wrote: > I've noticed that more and more things have stopped working in SXCE; > specifically X which is now only partially delivered (no Xnest) and, We've always only delivered the Xnest built on Xsun, so it's there on SPARC, been gone on x86 since we removed Xsun on x86 in snv_118. Xnest hasn't really been maintained in years, and is missing support for many of the newer extensions required by modern desktops, which is why we choose to EOL it in favor of the newer and more capable Xephyr, built from the current Xorg sources. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
> The time you need to install OpenSolaris is much > larger than installing > SXCE, mostly trying to find which packages you've > missed this time. > > Casper > This kind of "extra" effort is NOTHING compared to what those of us who are moving from Linux to Solaris/OpenSolaris have to go through. OTOH, if the Solaris stalwarts are willing to face the reality, I believe it will not be long b/f someone comes out with a script that will allow OpenSolaris to acquire most, of not all, of the features of SXCE in a single stroke. But most importantly, Linux is no Solaris. I have trained a few high school kids who became self-proclaimed Linux "experts" after burning a few midnight candles. No so with Solaris. We really need a bunch of Solaris old-hands, especially those who are not employed by Sun/Oracle, to immerse themselves into the spirit of OpenSolaris, and show us the light. Thanks in advance. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
--- On Sun, 1/3/10, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: > From: W. Wayne Liauh > Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 > To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > Date: Sunday, January 3, 2010, 5:21 AM > > The time you need to install > OpenSolaris is much > > larger than installing > > SXCE, mostly trying to find which packages you've > > missed this time. > > > > Casper > > > > This kind of "extra" effort is NOTHING compared to what > those of us who are moving from Linux to Solaris/OpenSolaris > have to go through. > > OTOH, if the Solaris stalwarts are willing to face the > reality, I believe it will not be long b/f someone comes out > with a script that will allow OpenSolaris to acquire most, > of not all, of the features of SXCE in a single stroke. > > But most importantly, Linux is no Solaris. I have > trained a few high school kids who became self-proclaimed > Linux "experts" after burning a few midnight candles. > No so with Solaris. We really need a bunch of Solaris > old-hands, especially those who are not employed by > Sun/Oracle, to immerse themselves into the spirit of > OpenSolaris, and show us the light. Thanks in > advance. Well, this is the year to cut 'the baby string' from SXCE and see if the OSOL Live CD can stand the test of time. SXCE contans a lot of legacy parts and I think a few years ago there was talk of the distro constructor creating a larger OSOL Live DVD that replaced SXCE. Now, Sun just provides a snapshot of the IPS repository on DVD and the smaller OSOL Live CD. That way, distro providers can focus on the Live CD for customized Live CD distros and still use the IPS DVD snapshots. So removing SXCE just removes a lot of historical parts that Sun wants to change into the more modern infrastructure. Will everyone be happy and like it? Well, do all kids like anchovies? This is probably like the time when people had to cross the Red Sea. Either you wait and stay with the legacy Solaris releases, drown in the misery of awaiting your migration planning, or you start MIGRATING to the other side. ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
ken mays wrote: > Well, this is the year to cut 'the baby string' from SXCE and see if the OSOL > Live CD can stand the test of time. > > SXCE contans a lot of legacy parts and I think a few years ago there was > talk of the distro constructor creating a larger OSOL Live DVD that replaced > SXCE. Now, Sun just provides a snapshot of the IPS repository on DVD and the > smaller OSOL Live CD. That way, distro providers can focus on the Live CD for > customized Live CD distros and still use the IPS DVD snapshots. > > So removing SXCE just removes a lot of historical parts that Sun wants to > change into the more modern infrastructure. Will everyone be happy and like > it? Well, do all kids like anchovies? I have the impression that Sun is now going to make the same mistakes as in the early 1990s. I still remember when I received a Sparc LX with SunOS-5.0 around 1991/1992 and while this allowed me to sneek into the new base, it was not usable for production purposes because it was too slow and because it did not support SunView anymore. We asked Sun to provide us with the SunOS-4.1.3 source to do a port to the Sparc LX in order to be able to use the machine for our customer base but then Sun did the port after waiting more than half a year. Sun finally even created a SunOS-4.1.4 for new machines and in 1996, SunOS-4.x was still in production use. 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] snv_130
> This is probably like the time when people had to cross the Red Sea. Either > you wait and stay with the legacy Solaris releases, drown in the misery of > awaiting your migration planning, or you start MIGRATING to the other side. Well, it depends on what you define as "the other side". Sure I can migrate a standalone desktop system to OpenSolaris right now. In fact, I have done that. But the migration target of a fully automated complex datacenter infrastructure is still years away. SXCE provided a missing link. It allowed me to just drop it into my existing Custom Jumpstart environment, provision a system (some 30 minutes), and test upcoming new features. Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: v...@bb-c.de Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
> On 12/31/2009 10:49 AM, Ron Halstead wrote: > > Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or > is it dead? > > Last I heard SXCE 130 was planned for release after > the Sun US > employees responsible for the release get back into > the office > next week. (Sun's US offices are closed for a > winter holiday > break from Dec. 25 - Jan. 1, so all this week.) > > 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as > previously announced. > Read my lips. Get a Solaris x86 Opensolaris server to install you Ultrasparc Opensolaris servers now. ---Bob -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
>casper@sun.com wrote: >> I've noticed that more and more things have stopped working in SXCE; >> specifically X which is now only partially delivered (no Xnest) and, > >We've always only delivered the Xnest built on Xsun, so it's there on >SPARC, been gone on x86 since we removed Xsun on x86 in snv_118. > >Xnest hasn't really been maintained in years, and is missing support >for many of the newer extensions required by modern desktops, which is >why we choose to EOL it in favor of the newer and more capable Xephyr, >built from the current Xorg sources. Sigh, why do people continuously reinvent tools and rename them? It just doesn't make sense. (And, unfortunately, I would think that could be Xnest lot faster than Xephyr.) DESCRIPTION Xephyr is a kdrive server that outputs to a window on a pre-existing "host" X display. Think Xnest but with support for modern extensions like composite, damage and randr. "kdrive server"?? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
Casper: I've noticed that more and more things have stopped working in SXCE; specifically X which is now only partially delivered (no Xnest) and, unfortunately, GDM was upgraded so getting Sun Ray to work is impossible, it seems, except by using dtlogin. In our testing, the new GDM works well with Sun Ray. The new GDM does work best with the latest SRSS 4.2 release. Let me know what specific problems you are having getting the new GDM working with Sun Ray or file bugs, and I would be happy to work through any issues you are having. After installing SRSS, I normally run these commands to get SRSS working on my machine: $ touch /etc/opt/SUNWut/ut_enable_gdm $ /opt/SUNWut/sbin/utadm -L on $ /opt/SUNWut/sbin/utrestart -c Note that SRSS will not work with GDM if you do not touch the /etc/opt /SUNWut/ut_enable_gdm file. I believe this is true regardless of whether you are using the old or new GDM. Brian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
* Bob Palowoda (palow...@fiver.net) wrote: > > On 12/31/2009 10:49 AM, Ron Halstead wrote: > > > Will there be a OpenSolaris Nevada sxce snv_130 or > > is it dead? > > > > Last I heard SXCE 130 was planned for release after > > the Sun US > > employees responsible for the release get back into > > the office > > next week. (Sun's US offices are closed for a > > winter holiday > > break from Dec. 25 - Jan. 1, so all this week.) > > > > 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as > > previously announced. > > > > Read my lips. Get a Solaris x86 Opensolaris server to install you > Ultrasparc Opensolaris servers now. Or, just use automated installer images produced on or after build 130 as they are now bootable on both SPARC and x86 and can perform an automated installation using a default AI client manifest directly from the media. This new functionality of the AI images was introduced in build 130 and gets around the 'bootstrap' issue for locations that are strictly SPARC shops (ie there wasn't a way to bootstrap opensolaris on SPARC if you didn't have AI setup on your network somewhere). http://blogs.sun.com/aalok/entry/automated_installer_from_media Cheers, -- Glenn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Glenn Lagasse wrote: > > Or, just use automated installer images produced on or after build 130 > as they are now bootable on both SPARC and x86 and can perform an > automated installation using a default AI client manifest directly from > the media. This new functionality of the AI images was introduced in > build 130 and gets around the 'bootstrap' issue for locations that are > strictly SPARC shops (ie there wasn't a way to bootstrap opensolaris on > SPARC if you didn't have AI setup on your network somewhere). > > http://blogs.sun.com/aalok/entry/automated_installer_from_media That gets round the wanboot limitation, so you can boot, but does it include the packages or do you need a repository? And if the latter, where do you get the repository iso from? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
* Peter Tribble (peter.trib...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Glenn Lagasse wrote: > > > > Or, just use automated installer images produced on or after build 130 > > as they are now bootable on both SPARC and x86 and can perform an > > automated installation using a default AI client manifest directly from > > the media. This new functionality of the AI images was introduced in > > build 130 and gets around the 'bootstrap' issue for locations that are > > strictly SPARC shops (ie there wasn't a way to bootstrap opensolaris on > > SPARC if you didn't have AI setup on your network somewhere). > > > > http://blogs.sun.com/aalok/entry/automated_installer_from_media > > That gets round the wanboot limitation, so you can boot, but does it > include the packages or do you need a repository? And if the latter, > where do you get the repository iso from? You need a repository, specifically the client manifest included on the media points at pkg.opensolaris.org http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/caiman/slim_source/usr/src/cmd/auto-install/default.xml Of course you can supply your own AI client manifest once the image is booted (the first grub option will ask you for the location of your own manifest which you can specify as an http url). As for the repository iso, one based on 2009.06 (not very useful for installing from build 130) can be found at: http://genunix.org/dist/indiana/osol-repo-0906-full.iso This is the entire image as a 7.1Gb file. I don't believe they are releasing the repo images for dev builds. But I'm not the authority on that. Cheers, -- Glenn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
Alan Coopersmith wrote: Volker A. Brandt wrote: Happy new year every1! 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. The problem is it's dividing our attention - by ending SXCE at 130, that concentrates all testing and development on OpenSolaris for builds 131-136 for the OpenSolaris 2010.03 release. And once ON converts it's gate to build IPS packages instead of SVR4, it won't be possible to build SXCE anymore, since they're not planning on maintaining two sets of packaging metadata in the ON gate. It would have been nice to have held off killing SXCE until there was a migration path to OpenSolaris -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Volker A. Brandt wrote: >> >>> Happy new year every1! >>> >>> >>> 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. >>> Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE >>> can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE >>> could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. >>> >> >> The problem is it's dividing our attention - by ending SXCE at 130, that >> concentrates all testing and development on OpenSolaris for builds 131-136 >> for the OpenSolaris 2010.03 release. And once ON converts it's gate to >> build IPS packages instead of SVR4, it won't be possible to build SXCE >> anymore, since they're not planning on maintaining two sets of packaging >> metadata in the ON gate. >> >> > It would have been nice to have held off killing SXCE until there was a > migration path to OpenSolaris > Sure, but realistically, it isn't cost or resource effective. SXCE releases are all about testing. Users that need something stable and supported should be either running the release versions of Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris 200x. As Alan said, running two release trains is tying up resources that are better spent focused on the rapidly maturing OpenSolaris builds. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
Shawn Walker wrote: On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Ian Collins wrote: Alan Coopersmith wrote: Volker A. Brandt wrote: Happy new year every1! 130 is the final SXCE release planned though, as previously announced. Which is too bad, really. Maybe the infrastructure to build SXCE can be kept in place a little bit longer. The final release of SXCE could then be cut in sync with the official OS 2010.02 release. The problem is it's dividing our attention - by ending SXCE at 130, that concentrates all testing and development on OpenSolaris for builds 131-136 for the OpenSolaris 2010.03 release. And once ON converts it's gate to build IPS packages instead of SVR4, it won't be possible to build SXCE anymore, since they're not planning on maintaining two sets of packaging metadata in the ON gate. It would have been nice to have held off killing SXCE until there was a migration path to OpenSolaris Sure, but realistically, it isn't cost or resource effective. SXCE releases are all about testing. Users that need something stable and supported should be either running the release versions of Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris 200x. Oh I agree, but I bet there's a lot of us who have been using, live upgrading, testing and providing feedback on SXCE since it was a stroppy teenager and haven't made the leap into the OpenSolaris realm. It's been too stable for its own good. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130
> Oh I agree, but I bet there's a lot of us who have > been using, live > upgrading, testing and providing feedback on SXCE > since it was a stroppy > teenager and haven't made the leap into the > OpenSolaris realm. It's > been too stable for its own good. > > -- > Ian. > Of course! I have been using SXCR (?) since at least build_26 (the earliest build that I still keep a complete set of CDs--there was no DVD then). I will be more than happy for Sun's developers to continue to provide all those conveniences as well as the great live upgrade services as you mentioned for me for free, while I don't have to give anything of value in return (Sun itself has an excellent QA team for Solaris anyway). But for the long-term health of Solaris, I chose to switch to OpenSolaris as soon as it became available. At the present time, I am not yet able to contribute, but at least I filed my complaints. :-) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
did you use fast reboot? If yes, try normal boot. Had this, too, after i used "reboot". -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
I have just got the kernel to start by passing: acpi-user-options=0x8(which I google told me to try to look for IDE timeouts) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
Adrian Carpenter wrote: Just upgraded snv_129 to snv_130 but unfortunately it doesn't get past: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_130 64-bit Copyright 1983-2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved Use is subject to license terms. _ (blinking cursor) Any hints? suggestions for working out whats afoot? There's a known problem in snv_130, fixed in snv_131: 6907022 acpica: System (Fujitsu ESPRIMO) hard hangs during boot after live-upgrade to snv_129 which you could be tripping-over. What kind of machine are you using? Dana ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
My machine is a homebrew based on: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ ECS GS7610 Motherboard -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
> There's a known problem in snv_130, fixed in snv_131: Any idea when an OpenSolaris Indiana version based on snv_131 will be put on genunix.org and in the /dev repository so we can either install or pkg image-update to it? I've been having a really rough time with updates from snv_111b to the builds from 128 onwards breaking everything on all of my systems (almost as bad as the classic "apt-get distroy-everything" command I ran on one of my Debian Sid boxes a very long time ago). The worst thing was when I tried to install a new system with build 131 straight from the live CD and ran in to this bug: 13540 Xserver crashes and freezes a system installed with LiveCD on bld 130 http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13540 After installation, the X server may crash and appears to not be restarted by the GNOME Display Manager (gdm). Work-around: None at this time. Great. So you can't even install of the snv_130 CD and have a working X-server so when does OpenSolaris dev snv_131 come out again? I was hoping it might be up on genunix.org before next Friday, but maybe I'm being too optimistic? If snv_131 is still too half-baked to be released to the public next week, then maybe instead we could have an snv_130a that at least lets you install a working system from the installation CD? 'cause right now snv_130 is totally unusable :-( -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
On 12/26/09 11:45 AM, Adrian Carpenter wrote: I have just got the kernel to start by passing: acpi-user-options=0x8(which I google told me to try to look for IDE timeouts) i have the hang problem with a Sun Ultra 20 (old ultra20, not M2) upgraded from b129 (amd opteron 152) but it doesn't work. I am also trying tests found here: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 without success i opened a bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13599 gerard ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
Le 28/12/09 11:00, solarg a écrit : On 12/26/09 11:45 AM, Adrian Carpenter wrote: I have just got the kernel to start by passing: acpi-user-options=0x8 (which I google told me to try to look for IDE timeouts) i have the hang problem with a Sun Ultra 20 (old ultra20, not M2) upgraded from b129 (amd opteron 152) but it doesn't work. I am also trying tests found here: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 without success i opened a bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13599 the problem is solved. It was due to frkit, that needed an upgrade before upgrading to 130. I am using frkit on this machine, in the hope to limit the noise and the power. But perhaps it's time to uninstall it? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_130 hangs
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 12:19 +0100, solarg wrote: > Le 28/12/09 11:00, solarg a écrit : > > > > On 12/26/09 11:45 AM, Adrian Carpenter wrote: > >> > >> I have just got the kernel to start by passing: > >> > >> acpi-user-options=0x8 (which I google told me to try to look for IDE > >> timeouts) > > > > i have the hang problem with a Sun Ultra 20 (old ultra20, not M2) > > upgraded from b129 (amd opteron 152) but it doesn't work. > > I am also trying tests found here: > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6907022 > > without success > > > > i opened a bug: > > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13599 > > > > the problem is solved. It was due to frkit, that needed an upgrade > before upgrading to 130. > I am using frkit on this machine, in the hope to limit the noise and the > power. But perhaps it's time to uninstall it? Using frkit is still very worth while (OK, so I'm biased, but...). The only thing to remember is to always run frkit to update the parts it provides before and after upgrading the OS itself. Casper fixed this issue a couple of weeks back. You may not have seen his emails explaining this, but if you'd have run frkit before the upgrade, you'd have not seen this issue anyway. =O} Ta, -- |o o Software Support Engineering, /v\ark R. Bowyer.SPARC House, Guillemont Park, `-' Minley Rd, Blackwater, Tel: +44 (0)1252 420691 Camberley, SURREY, GU17 9QG Fax: +44 (0)1252 421658 United Kingdom__| ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
