Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've put together two security resources (You'll need to be in the
> security group of the wiki to see this - if you're a long standing
> OI-Dev developer mail me offlist and we can discuss getting you access).
>
> http://wiki.openindiana.org/display/securi
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> On 01/24/11 05:12 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > If you believe thare are security issues that need to be addressed, please
> > make
> > a bug report into the Schillix-ON Bug Tracking system:
>
> Hi Joerg,
>
> As we're curre
Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
> 1. Package version numbers
>
> We have used 148.0.1 as a pkg version number of the updated
> consolidations, including osnet, to differentiate them from the original
> OpenIndiana 148 ones.
>
> One problem with the version number bump is that the default
> illumos-gate
Albert Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >
> > As ugly as I think 148.0.1 is, this may be the best compromise for now.
> >
> > Long term we have to disassociate ourselves from Oracle's "build
> > numbers".
> >
> > - Garrett
>
>
> Alternatively, rolling
Hernan Saltiel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
>
> > Updated ISO can be found here:
> >
> > http://dlc.openindiana.org/isos/148/oi-dev-148a-x86-20110221-1.iso
> >
> > Keyboard layout selection works OK now.
How did you implement this? Did you use the solution fr
Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
> On 02/22/11 15:34, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> Keyboard layout selection works OK now.
> > How did you implement this? Did you use the solution from Schillix-ON?
> The problem with kbd layout selection was introduced by one of our
> OpenIndi
Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
> On 02/22/11 15:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > It seems we should talk about how to deal with with naming
> >
> > Schillix-ON did already publish build 00 and build 01. Build 02 will be
> > ready
> > soon.
>
> Our updated
Andrzej Szeszo wrote:
> On 02/22/11 15:32, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > We need to agree on a system that allows users to distinguish between the
> > two
> > ONNV continuation projects Indiana and Schillix-ON.
> >
> As far as OpenIndiana distribution goes, we will
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> I think in general, the idea of swapping back and forth between
> different versions of ONNV is not going to work out so well.
>
> There are challenges related to dependencies between ON (or
> illumos-gate) and the rest of the system, and having multiple moving
> target
Matthew Wilby wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> On 23 February 2011 14:33, ken mays wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> > See Jon Tibble and Martin Bochnig for more extendibility.
> >
>
> I have no idea who Martin Bochnig is. In one of the OI meetings I asked how
> many people were looking at SPARC and the impression w
Albert Lee wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:06 AM, MATTHEW WILBY
> wrote:
> > Good Morning,
> >
> > I've seen various people enquire about when we are going to release a SPARC
> > iso.
> >
> > What I'd like to propose is that we work towards preparing a dev text
> > installer, using Illumos an
Albert Lee wrote:
> lxrun still works for older Linux binaries, but it used the rather
> ugly method of userspace syscall emulation by trapping SIGSEGV.
> Applications receive this signal when they cause a general protection
> fault by making an invalid system call using the traditional i386 INT
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Joerg Schilling <
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sun on the other side did introduce BrandZ instead of LKP in order to avoid
> > rnning Linux binariers to become too simple -
ken mays wrote:
> > LKP is different from lxrun as it does not simply catch
> > syscalls via signals
> > but creates a Linux infrastructure under /linux. Linux
> > programs run chroot()ed
> > in /linux and can see the UNIX infrastructure under /unix.
> >
> > For this reason, it is easy to have
gon...@comcast.net wrote:
> I doubt it.
>
> Because of the copy on write nature of the ZFS design, it needs a ton of
> memory to
> buffer the transactions in between syncing out to disc.
>
> It actually does run in less memory, it is just dog slow.
Low memory systems are not expected to run
Ken Gunderson wrote:
> Absolutely. Although I'm not so sure IPS is necessarily the way to go.
How about using pkgadd?
It supports installation over the net and there is not too much missing
features.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 06/22/11 12:04 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
> > Do you have hard data to support your comment that GIT is more used that
> > HG?. Moreover, in our arena? (OS development, distro creation).
>
> The lead is clearer in the OS develoepment & distro creation arena - the
> Linux ke
DavidHalko wrote:
> Sparse zones were probably one of the most innovative features of Solaris 10,
> providing significant value, and one of out biggest issues with moving off of
> Solaris 10.
>
> If OpenIndiana supported SPARC with Sparse Zones, managed service providers
> would have a seriou
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> > BTW: illumos does not support SVr4 packaging, SchilliX-ON does.
>
> That is a false statement.
>
> We have support for SVR4 packaging in the illumos gate. The *distros* have
> not elected to deliver SVR4 packages, and furthermore, we don't have tools
> *in-tree* to
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
> Garrett D'Amore
> garr...@damore.org
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> >
> >>> BTW: illumos does not support SVr4 pa
Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> I love SPARC and I've got a bunch of unused SPARC kit lying around too,
> but unfortunately, for real-world performance, support, choice, ease of
> development and pure economic sense, SPARC is a dead platform. Intel ate
> SPARC's lunch, big time. With vendors like SuperMic
Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> > In a few weeks, the new SVr4 Pkg based Schillix will be ready and then
> > building
> > a Sparc based system should be feasable.
> >
> > We need help from someone who has a sparc and who knows how to create a
> > bootable system for recent OpenSolaris.
>
> I've got a
Sa??o Kiselkov wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 08:03 PM, Randy DuCharme wrote:
> > Agreed that SPARC is probably a 'dead' platform and tick for tick my 6 core
> > AMD64 screams by comparison. SPARC has always been very reliable though
> > and I got mine very cheap. Would like to see them running since t
[private to you Alasdair - but I could also make some public remarks]
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> But it is also in part due to frustrations with the difficulty of making
> any progress on the project. OpenSolaris was maintained by a large
> corporate entity. We however, are volunteers, contribu
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> [private to you Alasdair - but I could also make some public remarks]
Sorry for the wrong recipitent list.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin
Maxim Kondratovich wrote:
> +1
> I think that leader is not a main problem now, but coordinator must be.
If we like OpenSolaris to survive, we need an OpenSolaris coordinator.
The current changes in Illumos are not in the right direction for a universally
usable OpenSolaris and there are more
Magnus Hedemark wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 6:44 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg
> Schilling) wrote:
>
> >
> > If we like OpenSolaris to survive, we need an OpenSolaris coordinator.
>
> OpenSolaris is long since dead. We are talking a
Magnus wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Looks like you missunderstand the problem and that your understanding is
> > one of
> > the reasons for the existing problems.
>
> I'm not so sure that I mis
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
> Depending on viewpoint, OpenSolaris is either alive or dead.
>
> However, it is indisputable that OpenSolaris is also ambiguous, and confusing.
>
> The distro is dead, but has been resurrected as OpenIndiana.
>
> The OS is alive, but it is called Illumos (to avoid ambiguity
Ken Gunderson wrote:
> So I think Joerg is accurate in his use of "OpenSolaris" in this
> context. And I also suspect his use of it here is to remind us of
> just what OpenSolaris started out as, and was supposed to be, before
> Sun Marketroids screwed the community over.
Correct, OpenSolaris i
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
> > Also a false assumption.
>
> Why is it a false assumption? Are there other projects that forked
> OpenSolaris?
>
> Can you please elaborate on what your contention with illumos is?
Illumos is one fork off OpenSolaris (ONNV), there are others.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@sch
Jonathan Adams wrote:
> On 3 September 2012 16:34, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
>
> > Correct, OpenSolaris is an umbrella and we need to find a way to coordinate
> > it's development to keep enough community behind OpenSolaris.
>
> except of course that we cannot
Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > > Some people created the fork "Illumos" but failed to get the whole
> > > community
> > > behind them, so using the name Illumos does not work.
> >
> > Ok. I see. Can you please direct me to these other forks?
>
> Hello Nick:
>
> I suspect Schillix may be one such refe
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
> I wish I had known about Schillix-ON earlier. I had just finished
> upgrading to OI151a.
>
> Are Schillix-ON and the OI userland mutually exclusive? Or can we swap
> the Illumos and Schillix-ON kernels as we please? I hope both kernels
> can mutually read each others' zfs p
Jim Klimov wrote:
> I've recently redone this on my laptop with no problems, following my
> own logs on wiki and bugtracker; the only substantial blocker was and is
> the "/sbin/sh" being a symlink to "../usr/bin/ksh" or somesuch. System
> fails to boot itself when /usr is separate. Replacing thi
Jonathan Adams wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 11:14, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > Linking /sbin/sh to ksh definitely was a mistake and I plan to fix this in
> > SchilliX-ON since a longer time. Before I introduce my fix, I will first
> > replace the unmaintained Bourne S
Jonathan Adams wrote:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily/
> >
>
> do you have a patch/diffs to source supplied elsewhere? Is this
> project stored in a git repository, or even in an SCCS tar ball
> separate to the Schillix-ON project?
P.S. if you like to check the latest man page, h
Andrew Stormont wrote:
>
> On 5 Sep 2012, at 18:04, Nick Zivkovic wrote:
>
> > I think that Andrew want to use a unified build system, instead of the
> > loose confederation of radically different systems that's currently in
> > use.
> >
> > I agree. A unified build system is necessary. The onl
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Nick Zivkovic wrote:
> > Agreed. Also, I see that /opt and /usr/$consolidation overlap in terms
> > of their purpose.
> >
> > For example we have /usr/X11. According to `man filesystem` /opt is
> > meant to hold add-on/third-party software.
> >
>
> /opt was meant for un
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > As a nice hint: The new Bourne Shell compiles and runs on Cygwin (thanks to
> > no
> > longer depending on sbrk(2)) and if you use it to interpret autoconf
> > scripts,
> > this
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 09/ 5/12 11:49 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > I asume that what you call "userland" is the successor for "sfw".
>
> Yes.
>
> > The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare
>
> Which is why it was completely thrown out and Userland started with a
> new de
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Given the fact that GNU autoconf has been more or less destroyed after
> > release
> > 2.13, so I personally base my work on an extremely enhanced gnu autoconf
> > 2.13.
> > Th
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 19:49, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare:
> >
> > - It only works if the whole set of tools has already been
> > installed in /usr on the compiling system before with exactly
> > th
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Which is why it was completely thrown out and Userland started with a
> >> new design from scratch.
> >
> > But as this did not exist before Spring 2010, I asume that the new system
> > is
> > not able to create native Svr4 packages.
>
> Correct. Userland was desi
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 21:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> > It seems that you missunderstand the problem.
> >
> > The main issue is that the build system linked against /usr instead of
> > linking
> > again
"Andrew M. Hettinger" wrote:
> That said, I think what Nick was talking about was not a build failure, but
> common issues IPS itself can have. I've seen a few (rare) times where it
> will just spit out a call-stack. Haveing a goto page of potental problems
> and fixes/workarounds would help.
Ap
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> > "Andrew M. Hettinger" wrote:
> >
> >> That said, I think what Nick was talking about was not a build failure, but
> >> common issues IPS itself can have. I'
Jim Klimov wrote:
> As for "shell changes", I believe this may refer to my suggestion
> about hierarchical root filesystem and the presence of a /sbin/sh
> within the root filesystem (not as a link to ../usr/bin/ksh).
> If that is the case, I believe a static compile of ksh may suffice
> for that
Jonathan Adams wrote:
> Please also note that Oracle cannot use code changes contributed to Illumos
> and keep their source code hidden. The developers at Oracle have been told
> not to look at this project _at all_ because of this so improvements that
> happen in the Illumos kernel (Major ZFS c
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > CDDL should not contain changes to itself, nor additional copyright
> > notices of any kind.
>
> Its inappropriate (and in violation of the license terms) to modify the CDDL
> license or boilerplate on code that you are not the sole author of. That
> boiler plate has
Jim Klimov wrote:
> Would I be wrong to assume that this was in place for OpenSolaris code
> (and indeed Oracle closed up their Solaris), while the new illumos
> contributors did not sign an SCA with Sun and thus are not subject to
> its terms? Did the (ex-)Sun/Oracle employees, including those c
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 07/22/13 09:19 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Well, the CDDL does not mention unmodifyable parts,
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 section 3.3:
>
> You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications that identifies
> Y
Adam ?tevko wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I will be removing copyright templates with old CCDL with the illumos one in
> oi-userland. This will cause that running make sample-manifest will generate
> p5m with current licensing. Other packages should get changed to the newer
> one, but keeping Oracle c
Adam ?tevko wrote:
> Basically, moving this into the oi-userland transforms dir -
> https://hg.openindiana.org/users/xenol/oi-build/file/3e7752f531e1/transforms/manifest-metadata-template
> and also modifying
> https://hg.openindiana.org/users/xenol/oi-build/file/3e7752f531e1/transforms/copyri
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> The prototypes follow this (the following is the file
> usr/src/prototypes/README in illumos-gate):
>
> To ensure that everyone can use the same boilerplate text without triggering
> copyright ownership because of the boilerplate itself, I hereby place the
> following te
Adam ?tevko wrote:
> Garret,
>
> but is legal for us to change that stuff in oi-userland? I personally don't
> see any reasons why I shouldn't, but I am not a lawyer, so I am asking as you
> two seem to know more than me..
I am not sure if I understand you correctly.
If you modify a file, I w
Repost as the content seems to have been lost before
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > Now that Sun was sold to Oracle and Oracle stopped contributing to the
> > project,
> > we need to be very careful and I thus strongly recommend to change the CDDL
> > boilerplate to again contain "CDDL versio
bin2mKIry89JQ.bin
Description: Binary data
___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Hi,
we are currently compiling X11 for SchilliX and there is a nasty problem:
"lshal" does not list the keyboard device on a Lenovo T400 which is:
Jul 16 12:12:06 schillix genunix: [ID 936769 kern.notice] kb80420 is
/pci@0,0/isa@1f/i8042@1,60/keyboard@0
Is this a known problem and is there a f
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 19:46, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> > Hello.
> > Our current libreadline in /hipster is not linked to libtermcap.so. This
> > causes issues when applications don't add "-ltermcap" linker flag.
> > We have the following patch
> > https://hg.openindiana.org/su
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2013, ken mays wrote:
> >
> > Add more...or less...
>
> Was ksh93 ever updated to fix known bugs (e.g. 'rm -f' with no
> argument produes error) which were fixed in upstream?
If it is possible to just fix bugs and to avoid to extend the number of
builtin
Ray Arachelian wrote:
> > Since oi_151a9 was scheduled for release this month, some initial
Could someone explain why you udr 151a9?
- It is not based on onnv_151
- It is most likely not the 151th release for OI
- It is based like others on onnv_147+
> > thoughts:
> >
> >
Jim Klimov wrote:
> I think it would complicate things for both developers and,
> potentially, users. In case of developers, one would have to
> think where the G++-compiled library he's going to use would
> be stored, and wonder if that location would suddenly become
> invalid in a future update
Laurent Blume wrote:
> Studio itself has now introduced a G++ ABI compatibility switch. So
> having G++-built libs in /usr/lib should not be the issue it once was.
> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E24457_01/html/E21991/bkana.html#bkanr
The problem is that this doea not help you with existing binarie
Laurent Blume wrote:
> Finally, since Oracle seems to be planning to add the G++ ABI into
> Studio 12.4 sparc, it appears to be on the verge of becoming the
> de-facto standard.
> Reality check: having a vastly multiplatform standard is *good*, even if
> it was Not Invented Here. And the more
ken mays wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ref: https://projects.gnome.org/brasero/
> RFE: https://www.illumos.org/issues/4341
>
> We currently have the Brasero 2.30.3 package for OI. Since there is a task is
> to migrate a few things over to oi-userland, we can look at current patches
> for Brasero 2.30.3 a
seth Nimbosa wrote:
> Basically, we need to take one step back so we can move forward.
>
> the OpenSolaris community as it is has always been small from the start
> after Sun was swallowed by Oracle and all official development ceased
>
> we had to start over with illumos and OpenIndiana,
> howev
Jonathan Adams wrote:
> *Joerg Schilling* wrote:
>
> "I am not sure whether you are aware about the fact that OpenSoaris has few
> contributors and that Illumos is trying to frighten developers by not being
> a sure partner you may trust"
Wow, a reply after more than 5
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> Hi Seth,
>
> When I started OpenIndiana, I wanted to avoid the "Linux Distribution
> Fragmentation" issue, so I created a community distro and tried to solicit
> input from everyone and try to keep everyone happy.
>
> I failed miserably. Nobody wants to collaborate, ever
Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Alasdair Lumsden
> wrote:
>
> >
> > TribbliX was a for fun desktop-oriented distro (correct me if I'm wrong)
> > by someone that hates IPS and loves SVR4 packaging. I got the impression
> > Peter never seemed to want to help OI out directl
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> But they do. Openindiana is still the reference as the only disto that can
> build vanilla an unmodified illumos-gate. Unless that has changed?
SchilliX allows to build SchilliX-ON
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berli
Peter Tribble wrote:
> First, you need to stop saying "must" and attempting to
> dictate design and implementation decisions.
Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
things but signal that there is an interest for a collaboration.
>
> > Well
> >
> > -
Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:42:53 +0100
> > From: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
>
> >
> > Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
> > things but signal that there is an interest for a collaboration.
>
> illumos is collaborative. I
Andy Stormont wrote:
> The IPS metadeta isn?t really that useful to non-IPS distributions but I?m
> not sure removing it is a good idea. Instead I?d rather see the SVR4 data
> reintegrated if it?s going to see some use and somebody cares enough to
> maintain it.
This is what I did in late 20
Bayard Bell wrote:
> > From my experiences Illumos is non-collaborative and non-trustworthy.
> >
> > This however is something that could be easily changed. Illumos would just
> > need to give a sign that there is a will for collaboration.
>
> This is tiresome and unreasonable, Joerg.
I am no
Andy Stormont wrote:
> > This is what I did in late 2010 and early 2011.
> >
> > Svr4 package meta data is present and maintained on SchilliX-ON.
> > Feel free to take it.
>
> I?d love to see an SVR4 distro that was actually supported by upstream
> illumos but I won?t be the one to make it hap
Bayard Bell wrote:
> illumos never made any promises to you,
I am sorry to see that you are uninformed.
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) B
seth Nimbosa wrote:
> The reason we need a minimum of criteria for collaboration is precisely
> because the different distributions have different focus, approach, and use
> case scenarios in mind, but a set of core features that will make it to a
> unified kernel will be for everyone's benefit.
seth Nimbosa wrote:
> Quick Question: can anyone tell me about illumos integration of system
> tools/utilities from AT&T AST and/or the Heirloom Project? Or are there
> any licensing concerns about that? Thanks!
You remind me that I need to ask David and Glenn whether there are legal
implicat
Nikola M. wrote:
> On 09/14/14 07:02 PM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> > Furthermore it is nonsense what you write about the CDDL terms. The
> > CDDL permits the developer to keep the src closed, similar to the Xorg
> > license.
> I would say it is nonsense what you just said. Re-reading CDDL could
>
Nikola M. wrote:
> > This is not correct: The CDDL is file based and you are allowed to add new
> > files that you may keep secret. You however need to publish everything you
> > modified and that was under CDDL.
> Yeah, but if those file(s) that one adds to CDDL code are - Patches to
> original
Nikola M. wrote:
>
> Or the difference exist because I think CDDL forces treating files that
> change previous code as patches and you maybe say, that treating files
> that change existing code as patches is - optional?
If you add code in new files, it is fully optional to the author whether t
ken mays via oi-dev wrote:
> As for Martin, he did provide source for his initial releases and was going
> to make the latest patches available.
> He pretty much told others what he was doing to solve various issues and even
> where he was picking up some ideas and code. This was posted in a R
Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Hi Joerg and all,
>
> thank you for your friendly messages.
> Yes, everything started at first with SchilliX. Even BeleniX at its
> very beginning, the father of Indiana, which was then simply cloned
I in fact made a project proposal to Sun years before they hired Ian Mur
ken mays wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> Then, the solution is easy. People should offer him 'payable work' before
> asking for HIS contributions.
I am sorry, I currently do not have the option to offer such a position.
If I am able to aquire a project for FOKUS that is OpenSolaris based, things
may be
Nikola M. wrote:
> On 11/30/14 11:26 AM, Jonathan Adams wrote:
> > please be aware that "OpenSolaris" is a trademark of Oracle, and not
> > freely available, and that Oracle have almost bottomless pockets when
> > protecting their trademarks.
> Seems like Opensolaris brand provisions are still
Nikola M. wrote:
> >> Actually if Opensolaris governing board haven't decide to dismantle
> >> Opensolaris distribution, it would continue to live.
> > The government board did resign, as it was impossible for the government
> > board
> > to even get in touch with authorized Sun exployees anymor
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 12/ 1/14 06:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > In late 2004 or early 2005, there was a community decision that there can
> > never
> > be a distro with the name "OpenSolaris".
>
> There was no community framework to make such a de
Nikola M. wrote:
> On 12/ 1/14 04:52 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/ 1/14 06:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> In late 2004 or early 2005, there was a community decision that there can
> >>> ne
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> OpenIndiana found out making that distro is hard without the hundreds of
> people
> Sun was paying to work on it. The number of community participants from
> outside
> Sun never even came close to matching the amount Sun was assigning to do the
> work (and which Oracle
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> On 12/13/2014 02:50, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>
> > This is what I get:
> >
> > gzip: /usr/share/man/man1/sloccount.1.gz: not in gzip format
> > :1:1: FATAL: not a manual
> >
> > Somehow, what got installed is not a valid gz file. I'll fix this. (I'm
> > guessing tha
Nikola M wrote:
> On 01/ 6/16 01:07 PM, ?? ?? wrote:
> >
> > I am absolutely in SHOCK :
> >
>
> Please Martin, sorry to hear the news, but let's have list stay
> on-topic. Thank you a lot!
And BTW: Ian committed suicide during an episode of his bipolar desease,
Aurélien Larcher wrote:
> Noboby wants things to escalate.
Whether a code of conduct helps or not depends on how it is managed.
If an empowered maintainer likes to kick off a person, he will usually bend the
rules until they fit.
Also note that I've seen many discussions where the wrong peopl
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After updating brasero I've looked at sound-juicer to check that it
> didn't break... OK, old sound juicer doesn't work with new brasero.
Did you verify whether this brasero "update" gives you any benefit or whether
it just contains modifications to use th
"Udo Grabowski (IMK)" wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 10:45, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> > ... We don't ship it,
> > because cdparanoia was never properly ported to Solaris.
>
> It was ported to opensolaris and was available up to 151a9 from SFE:
>
> library/audio/libcdio (sfe) 0.82-0.151.1.5
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> > Did you verify whether this brasero "update" gives you any benefit or
> > whether
> > it just contains modifications to use the buggy "cdrkit" instead of the
> > "cdrtools" original and thus should be avoided?
> >
> > There have been many people asking for better CD
ken mays via oi-dev wrote:
> Like Joerg mentioned, I also went the similar solution path with cddawav
> (cdrtools) when I maintained gstreamer long ago.
> You can glance at Mediamonkey (http://www.mediamonkey.com) and Whipper
> (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/whipper-git/) for various moder
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> So far I'm trying to make sound juicer 2.32 work with gstreamer 0.10,
> gtk 3.0 and brasero 3... Don't know if it's ugly, but if it works, this
> will save me from porting gstreamer 0.10 plugin to gstreamer 1.0...
My code is for gstreamer 0.10. If you like reliable a
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> Now more news... I was able to build it in such configuration, but it
> doesn't work. Moreover, old soundjuicer, which we currently have, also
> likely doesn't work (I haven't checked, but code is the same).
>
> sound-juicer queries cdda file info over gvfs. But our (
Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
> It seems I misidentified the issue. The real issue was that sound-juicer
> tried to use gvfs to access cdda files, and our gvfs doesn't support
> this (even if it is compiled with cdda support, it can't mount cdda
> location due to missing fuse support. And to enable
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
