Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> In case it wasn't obvious from the header, I'm sponsoring this
> fasttrack for myself, and have set the timeout to next Monday,
> January 14, 2008.
I've not seen any comments, so this case is now closed approved.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith
I don't think there are current plans to offer this in SPARC. If we
were to do so, we'd first
have to extend the DRI/DRM interfaces to SPARC, which in turn would have
a dependency
upon the _sigoff/_sigon interfaces extended as Contract Private the x86
desktop consolidation.
It would make sense
Variants of the ATI Radeon (Radeon 7000, I believe) are used in SPARC
systems. Is there any plan to offer this functionality on SPARC hardware?
-- Garrett
Eric Sultan wrote:
> I'm sponsoring this fast-track for Minskey Guo, the timer to expire on
> 01/21/2008.
>
> This project delivers a So
I'm sponsoring this fast-track for Minskey Guo, the timer to expire on
01/21/2008.
This project delivers a Solaris x86/amd64 port of the open-sourced
ATI Radeon 3D driver, using the DRI interfaces provided by PSARC 2004/801.
The proposed binding is patch.
The one-pager is included below.
-- E
I am sponsoring this FastTrack for Phi Tran.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
GNOME Power Management Support
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Richard Lowe wrote:
>
> But surely over in OpenSolaris land we have raidctl, which while
> currently specific to mpt-driven cards (I think), seems clearly
> intended to be generic.
>
> I assume that the mega_sas actually intend to integrate a raidctl plugin,
> rather than a separate CLI?
Best no
Lei Chen wrote:
> David L. Markowitz wrote:
>> What plans are there, if any, to support this on Sun Ray, like libusb
>> currently does?
> SunRay may have resource limit at present. I think SunRay folks can
> probably help answer this question.
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your question. I check
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> It appears that the OBG/Constitution changed the rules started by Sun and
> later adopted by the CAB. Is this a fair statement?
The adoption of the Constitution defined a new way to define the rules, and
no one has followed through to define rules and processes in the new
/*
The ML system doesn't properly work once again. I'm subscribed to arc-discuss,
but my second message hangs somewhere. This has happened frequently on
opensolaris.org's lists. And I repeatedly have pointed it out long before. If
it is not possible to put mb1x at gmx.com onto a "whitelist", t
from root filesystems of type ZFS.
Submitter: Lori Alt
Owner: James Carlson
Exposure: open
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080114/fa393a20/attachment.html>
David L. Markowitz wrote:
> What plans are there, if any, to support this on Sun Ray, like libusb
> currently does?
SunRay may have resource limit at present. I think SunRay folks can
probably help answer this question.
Thanks,
Lei Chen
>
> Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
>> I am sponsoring this fast
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> We recently had examples where a single project did introduce incompatible
> extensions that caused harm to the whole.
>
Please list these.
- jek3
Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> Derailing is just switching the points (or pointing the switches) to the
> longer variant of the development process.
>
:-) Nice analogy and double entandre. (How ever you spell it!)
- jek3
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>
>
>> I've been known to misread or misunderstand statements before. So, let me
>> ask directly...
>>
>> Roy, John,... Do you believe that any community delivering code is
>> required
>> to interact with the ARC, and to adhere to the de
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> We've gone through this a hundred times already. The current ARC
> process at Sun is not mandated in any way *other* than by choice
> of the consolidation gatekeepers. Nothing has changed in that regard.
> In fact, if anything, we have strengthened the ARC by removing the
Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, James C. McPherson wrote:
...
>> Hanging around for months waiting, being continually "reassured"
>> in non-public conversations that allegedly better code is going
>> to get integrated is *NOT* a useful way of encouraging other
>> driver authors to bother
Rich,
You are right. Architecturally, raidctl(1M) is the the solaris generic
RAID configuration tool.
And I believe MegaCLI will not be integrated into Solaris and we need
raidctl
plugin finally. But before the raidctl plugin for Megasas get ready, I
think MAYBE
megasas will follow aac(9D) and
Sorry to spread the discussion thread to OGB. I post email there
just because I found the initial discussion about MFI includes the
OGB mail aliases and I don't expect OGB take any action accroding my
email at all.
Yes, our team should have post some road map in opensolaris somewhere.
I tried my b
18 matches
Mail list logo
