James Carlson schrieb:
Note:
The extra GnuTLS libraries -- which contains OpenPGP and TLS/IA
support, LZO compression, the OpenSSL compatibility library --
and the self tests and command line tools are distributed under
the GNU General Public
On 05/27/08, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Raymond Xiong wrote:
On 05/23/08, Darren J Moffat wrote:
John Fischer wrote:
==
On OpenSolaris, the public interface to start and stop
ejabberd will be SMF and the service will be named:
svc:/network/xmpp:ejabberd
Note
The following case was submitted two weeks ago, and I can't
see that it has received a case number (nor mentioned in the
any of the two LSARC meetings since).
--Magne
Magne M?hre wrote:
Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.31 07/08/08 SMI
This information is Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems
hi, All
I am sponsoring this case, setting the time out to be 06/03/2008.
Additional materials can be found at
Sun Internal
http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/345/materials/
Will be posted to Opensoaris.org
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/345/
--Irene
hi, All
I am sponsoring this case, setting the time out to be 06/03/2008.
Additional materials can be found at
Sun Internal
http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/346/materials/
Will be posted to Opensoaris.org
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/346/
--Irene
J?rg Barfurth Joerg.Barfurth at Sun.COM wrote:
Maybe we need a separate 'GPL licensed libraries and plugins' package
repository outside the 'core OpenSolaris' one, just as much as we appear
to need 'closed source bits and pieces' or 'other less well integrated
software' repositories. In
Shi-Ying Irene Huang wrote:
Support for MS OLE2 streams is complete, as is zip import. There
is also support for document metadata and some initial work on
decompressing VBA streams in OLE files for future conversion
to other languages. This library replaces libole2 and is
Why does this case import Firefox ?
Exactly what from Firefox does it import ? Surely not the whole thing ?
Are there no use editable files in $HOME/.w3m/config ?
--
Darren J Moffat
Raymond Xiong wrote:
Here is my new proposal:
- Method credential for ejabberd SMF service will be daemon user
and daemon group. So, all files generated at runtime will have
daemon as their uid and gid.
- A new profile Ejabberd Administration will be created, which
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Are you using (populating) anything in /usr/shell as part of this case?
I think you mean /usr/lib/shell.
/usr/lib/shell/ is the correct location since we expect that
ISA-specific modules show-up there...
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
### Part 2: Project-private location for shell function library
/usr/lib/shell/ is reserved as project private location, mainly to
build a (platform/architecture-specific) library of dynamically
loadable shell functions in a similar form as
Hi, Darren
Meta Tracker will depend on libgsf, an ARC will be filed soon :)
--Irene
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 10:42 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Shi-Ying Irene Huang wrote:
Support for MS OLE2 streams is complete, as is zip import. There
is also support for document metadata and
J?rg Barfurth writes:
James Carlson schrieb:
Note:
The extra GnuTLS libraries -- which contains OpenPGP and TLS/IA
support, LZO compression, the OpenSSL compatibility library --
and the self tests and command line tools are distributed under
Jeff Cai writes:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:40 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
Are there incompatible changes being made? If so, then what is the
impact of those changes? What depends on them and how will they
coordinate?
To adapt to changes in the TLS extension specifications for SRP, the
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Are you using (populating) anything in /usr/shell as part of this case?
If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
Without that portion, this case is pretty much an automatic-approval case
to upgrade to the latest upstream, but since the project
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Gary Winiger wrote:
How will this affect audit of chown(2), acl(2)? In particular
when
the audit trail file is processed on another system, or after a
reboot? Will ephermeral uid's be stored in the audit trail file?
How will
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Are you using (populating) anything in /usr/shell as part of this case?
If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
Without that portion, this case is pretty much an automatic-approval case
to upgrade to the latest
James Carlson schrieb:
I think use of the GPL for libraries is a special case here, as would be
use of any similarly 'viral' license, which places requirements on
I never mentioned any viral problems, and that's not the problem I
have with this case.
The problem I have is that a couple
James Carlson wrote:
A better solution is to decouple these things: do the architectural
review on the *whole* case, ignoring the legal questions, and then
allow the project team to go off and do the legal review as a
dependency for shipping.
Otherwise, this looks like a preemptive strike.
? 2008-05-28?? 09:17 -0400?James Carlson???
Jeff Cai writes:
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 10:40 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
Are there incompatible changes being made? If so, then what is the
impact of those changes? What depends on them and how will they
coordinate?
To adapt to changes
[This discussion doesn't really belong into the GnuTLS case any more, so
probably not onto the opensolaris-arc list. Further discussion should
happen elsewhere.]
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
J?rg Barfurth Joerg.Barfurth at Sun.COM wrote:
Maybe we need a separate 'GPL licensed libraries and
Roland Mainz wrote:
AFAIK you mean /usr/lib/shell/ and the answer is maybe, depending on
time. The first real consumer may be the man-rewrite project which
stuffs the shared shell code into
usr/lib/shell/ksh/org/opensolaris/man/misc/ or something like that (e.g.
common shell functions for
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Are you using (populating) anything in /usr/shell as part of this case?
If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
Without that portion, this case is pretty much an automatic-approval case
to upgrade to the
Joerg Barfurth writes:
James Carlson schrieb:
The problem I have is that a couple of random components -- ones that
are in Solaris today -- were removed from this project because the
upgraded license is now considered to be unacceptable.
If the issue is GPLv2 vs. GPLv3, then I misread
Sorry, one more set of questions:
This project is an amendment to the Korn Shell 93 Integration project
update 1 ARC case (PSARC/2008/094) specifying the following additional
interfaces:
1) Update of ksh93 from upstream release ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to
ast-ksh-2008-05-22
1.1) Update of
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Coopersmith Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com
Subject: ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1 [PSARC/2008/344
FastTrack timeout 06/03/2008]
...
## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
The 1.1 portion of this project is the
Darren J Moffat writes:
While it is ksh93 I don't think any of this really matters that much
because you have to explicitly ask for ksh93. On the other hand if this
same implementation was exporting this same functionality by default
when it was used as the implementation of /bin/sh I
Glenn Skinner wrote:
(latin) alphabet for its version number, e.g. version 'a',
version 'b' etc. ; the '+'/'-' means the stabilty status, e.g.
'-' means its alpha, no suffix means its stable (e.g. ready
for production usage) and '+' means its a bugfixed stable version
Roland Mainz wrote:
If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
Why ? The directory is explcitly marked as project private for now.
AFAIK we don't have to notify ARC about further activities there until
we start making ARC contracts or open the interfaces there...
This case was approved during the PSARC meeting today.
- Dan
Dan Hain wrote:
I'm sponsoring this FastTrack for Gabriel Carrillo and Kevin McInerney.
Man page is located in the project directory.
Requested binding is micro.
- Dan
Proposal:
Integrate libdvdread into Solaris
This case was approved at today's meeting.
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:44:06PM +0800, Jeff Cai wrote:
I'd rather say 'important' is determined on the basis of technical
things since the implementation of TLS is in the core library. :)
Important is in the eye of the beholder. If there are popular apps
out there that need the libraries
I. Szczesniak wrote:
Such as __sun_ksh_93__.2008.05.28__namespace__.LONG DESCRIPTION.enum?
No, such as set ksh_language_level=93s or something - it's not our place
to design here, just ask if it's been considered. Hopefully Glenn or David
can tell us how this is handled in general,
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Is this one of those FOSS cases we are supposed to not get too deep into
polishing the edges?
I don't think so. ksh93 is more intrinsically becoming a core
component, that we build our system upon. It has a non-External
commitment. Therefore, I believe it deserves
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Is this one of those FOSS cases we are supposed to not get too deep into
polishing the edges?
I don't think so. ksh93 is more intrinsically becoming a core
component, that we build our system upon. It has a non-External
commitment.
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:39:03 -1000
From: Joseph Kowalski jek3 at sun.com
Subject: Re: 2008/344 [ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1]
Glenn Skinner wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Coopersmith Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Roland Mainz wrote:
The java packages are in /usr/share/lib/ and /usr/share/lib/java/
I doubt the JAVA packages there have any ISA-specific code inside.
First, package is a reserved word in the Java Language. Need to be
careful here
A wad which exports
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:33:10PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Huh? This share is supposed to be shared? If that was the case is should
be /usr/gnu/... and /usr/share/gnu/...
Well... it's still better having the GNU stuff seperate... we're still
suffering from the GNU parts like readlink
Roland Mainz wrote:
AFAIK you are underestimating how most university clusters (or larger
sites like CERN) are set-up (I think the CERN people will likely
complain loudly via a service ticket or worse if they can't setup their
machine that way anymore), e.g. usually the local disks are for
Glenn Skinner wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Coopersmith Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com
Subject: ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1 [PSARC/2008/344
FastTrack timeout 06/03/2008]
...
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
[snip]
## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from
ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update
from ksh93 version 's+' to version 't-' (AST/ksh93 uses the
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Frankly, the effort to create a new case (fast track or otherwise) is
so small, that I'd just spin off the /usr/lib/shell part into a
separate fast track. If you would like a sponsor for it, write up a
quick draft -- you can probably just extract the relevant text
I am sponsoring this case for Kenichiro Kagoshima. Timeout is set for
06/04/08.
The functional spec is in the case directory.
Release binding is Minor.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1.
Roland Mainz wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
[snip]
## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from
ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update
from ksh93 version 's+' to version
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Frankly, the effort to create a new case (fast track or otherwise) is
so small, that I'd just spin off the /usr/lib/shell part into a
separate fast track. If you would like a sponsor for it, write up a
quick draft -- you can probably just
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:45:12 +0200
From: Roland Mainz roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
Subject: Re: 2008/344 [ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1]
Glenn Skinner wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Roland Mainz wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
[snip]
## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from
ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update
from ksh93
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:33:10PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Huh? This share is supposed to be shared? If that was the case is should
be /usr/gnu/... and /usr/share/gnu/...
Well... it's still better having the GNU stuff seperate... we're still
suffering from
2008 13:04:06 -0700
Size: 5741
URL:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080528/0753e5b8/attachment.nws
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Frankly, the effort to create a new case (fast track or otherwise) is
so small, that I'd just spin off the /usr/lib/shell part into a
separate fast track. If you would like a sponsor for it, write up a
quick draft -- you can probably just
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
It may be helpful for persons observing this, as well as the project
team, to understand that Solaris integrations always need to conform to
a release ready rule. That is, we don't integrate software that
aren't comfortable including in a full release, as that software
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
[snip]
I've not heard from any other ARC members that they feel strongly
about this. That doesn't mean they don't; we often just let the
poster of the initial request continue to discuss.
However, this is starting
Roland Mainz wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Frankly, the effort to create a new case (fast track or otherwise) is
so small, that I'd just spin off the /usr/lib/shell part into a
separate fast track. If you would like a sponsor for it, write up a
quick draft
Okay, it sounds like what you're requesting is really a change of
additional things, outside the scope of this case.
Can I suggest we go forward with 8 for now, and if you're going to do
some additional changes to error handling, bridges, or other things, you
run another case to make those
Roland Mainz wrote:
Right... let's drop the readlink topic, please...
... but a registry may be interesing... however my optinion is that
the GNU stuff should only end-up in /usr/bin/ if it fully passes the
POSIX test suite and is CSI-conformant.
We don't require Posix conformance for our
I have no objection to that.
Thanks,
Wes
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Okay, it sounds like what you're requesting is really a change of
additional things, outside the scope of this case.
Can I suggest we go forward with 8 for now, and if you're going to do
some additional changes to error
Roland Mainz wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
[snip]
I've not heard from any other ARC members that they feel strongly
about this. That doesn't mean they don't; we often just let the
poster of the initial request continue to
Roland Mainz wrote:
Erm... two items:
1. B72 integrated ksh93 version s- (which was an alpha version, too)
- and for the first attempt it was AFAIK quite good. And the upcoming
ksh93t- will be better since we learned from our mistakes.
2. Looking at the number of bugs open in bugster and
Roland Mainz wrote:
... is usr/src/lib/shell/ Ok as name for the sources (usr/src/libshell/
is already occupied by something else) ?
That's between your project and the C-Team who owns the gate.
ARC's don't do code review or source tree layout.
--
-Alan Coopersmith-
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Is this one of those FOSS cases we are supposed to not get too deep into
polishing the edges?
I don't think so. ksh93 is more intrinsically becoming a core
component, that we build our system upon. It has a non-External
commitment.
OK. Thanks. I'm marking this case approved.
- Garrett
Wesley Shao wrote:
I have no objection to that.
Thanks,
Wes
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Okay, it sounds like what you're requesting is really a change of
additional things, outside the scope of this case.
Can I suggest we go
Roland Mainz writes:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Its the Cement Truck Syndrome. If Roland gets hit by a cement
truck, we are left with an empty turd.
1. I do not want to be hit by a cement truck.
2. The ksh93-integration project has two leaders, e.g April Chin and /me
and David Korn and
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Roland Mainz wrote:
If not, you might consider running that as a separate fast track.
Why ? The directory is explcitly marked as project private for now.
AFAIK we don't have to notify ARC about further activities there until
we start making ARC contracts or open
I am sponsoring this case for Kenichiro Kagoshima.
Timeout is set for
6/04/08.
The functional spec is in the case directory.
Release binding is Minor.
minor, not patch (i.e. no plans to backport)? Bummer...
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Roland Mainz wrote:
1. I do not want to be hit by a cement truck.
2. The ksh93-integration project has two leaders, e.g April Chin and /me
and David Korn and Glenn Fowler are there, too.
I guess I got to cute (but I believe this is a common phrase).
We don't want the project team to not
This has gotten way off the track of architectural review, so I have moved
psarc-ext to the blind copy list.
Garrett ... Solaris integrations always need to conform to a release ready
Garrett rule. That is, we don't integrate software that aren't comfortable
Garrett including in a full release,
This message posted from opensolaris.org
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20080528.2007.210.inception
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080528
Open ARC Business
-
05/27/2008 MEETING MINUTES
ATTENDEES:
Chair
Tom ChildersYes
Members (10 active members)
Mark Carlson
This seems rather complicated to me. Given that
SAM-QFS SMF Management of sam-fsd (PSARC/2008/326)
was recently approved, why can't svc:/system/zones:default
be made to depend ultimately on SAM-QFS already being up
(whether via the milestone that it currently depends on, or directly)?
Or if
Roland Mainz wrote:
I was thinking about Friday, 30.5.2008 to avoid making the codebase a
running target for the code reviewers because the ARC case is not
finished (Tuesday, 3.6.2008 is Ok, too... but that's IMO the upper limit
since we're running into other timing issues).
Since it's
Roland Mainz wrote:
can we do recommendations in an ARC case (not strict rules... more
being suggestions) ?
Many times those comments are simply pointing out well known
architectural requirements that may be unknown to the project
teams.
Other items are explicitly called out as TCR's (aka
Harry Lu wrote:
Including the project team in this thread.
Harry
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 23:28 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
Could you explain why W3M is needed on Solaris. The FastTrack doesn't
Before this thread devolves into Yet Another Rathole, I suggest moving
that discussion
72 matches
Mail list logo
