Sorry, the External link should be on opensolaris
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/389
--Irene
Irene Huang wrote:
Hi, all
I am sponsoring this case, setting the timeout to be 06/25/2008
Manpages for the binaries are available at
Internally
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
libtasn1 for OpenSolaris
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Jeff Cai
1.3 Date of This Document:
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 23:48 -0700, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
The signal between X and Y or X sends signal to Y language is
confusing. DBus signals in general are not peer to peer, they are
messages broadcast on a bus. Arbitrary number of applications can listen
on the bus. It is possible,
Jerry Tan wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Robert Kinsella wrote:
Hi Darren,
I started trackerd manually in all zones, gnome-session (testing on
gnome2.22) did not start the daemon automatically.
Is this is bug that will be fixed before integration or an
architectural issue that it can't
James Carlson wrote:
[sorry, this one was stuckforgotten in my Drafts/-folder]
Garrett D'Amore writes:
Have the upstream providers given thought to dealing with changes like
this and their impact on already-deployed scripts? (Maybe there aren't
any that we care about yet, since our ksh93
Spec:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/351/proposal
Draft Opinion (also below):
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/351/opinion-draft-txt
Notes:
I will be out of electronic communication on vacation for the next 2 weeks
This is a *draft*
4.3.2. Who gets to decide what changes get accepted into
OpenSolaris, especially ones that affect the way the
OpenSolaris Binaries are built?
One member asserted
The real issue is that this isn't a change for you, or
even the community to decide. Where did you
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Perhaps some view the unspecific reference of one member as making
this OK. I don't.
In the whole email trail, this was one of the most succinct descriptions
of the issue you were objecting to - as well as what seems to be some
rationale for why the project faced such
Just to be clear, you are defending the inclusion of private mail in a
official opinion?
John Plocher wrote:
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
Perhaps some view the unspecific reference of one member as making
this OK. I don't.
In the whole email trail, this was one of the most succinct
Just another tibbit:
Perhaps you considered:
a) paraphrasing it
b) contacting me about it
If you *had* contacted me about this, I would probably have said, sure,
just drop the last sentence of the first paragraph (ETOCOLORFULL) and
drop the second paragraph (ETOLITTLECONTEXT or
10 matches
Mail list logo
