Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> It's a small gap.
>>>
>>> I think where it really matters one might use ZFS with iSCSI vdevs
>>> and a
>>> local L2ARC device.
>>>
>>
>> An interesting idea. I am not too familiar with iSCSI, but don't
>> you need
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> John Fischer wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I am sponsoring this project for Darren Kenny from the Desktop
>> group in Dublin, Ireland. The case materials contains the
>> attached proposal. I have set the timer for Monday, August 4th,
>> 2008.
>>
>> This project requests a Minor
Personally I agree completely with the EOF of the current
implementation, having been directly involved in supporting it in Sun
Service and sustaining.
However I disagree that we no longer need such functionality. I also
find it quite sadly ironic that other operating systems are only now
s
John Fischer wrote:
> All,
>
> I am sponsoring this project for Darren Kenny from the Desktop
> group in Dublin, Ireland. The case materials contains the
> attached proposal. I have set the timer for Monday, August 4th,
> 2008.
>
> This project requests a Minor release binding of Solaris. It
>
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:
Irssi for OpenSolaris
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Henry Zhang
1.3 Date of This Document:
Jerry Tan wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> 1. Cdrdao extract hidden Audio Tracks that live in the pregap of track 1.
> It seems that cdrecord has this feature in its todo list,
> but no one request that, it is not a important feature, right?
Cdrecord in it's preferred default int
Hi James,
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 23:42 +1000, James C. McPherson wrote:
> 4 Imported Interfaces
>
> Interface ClassificationComments
> - --
> ...
> DBUS (libdbus-1.so.3) Volatile
>
Hi, all
I've changed the interface definition in
http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/446/proposal-v2.txt
There's no more unresolved issues for this case, I'd like to close it in
24 hours if there's no more questions.
--Irene
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:26 +0800, Jim Li wrote:
> Brian:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> I don't. cachefs like behaviour could be useful for CIFS as well (and
> some day WebDAV too, why not, and maybe the AFS community would use the
> infrastructure if available).
>
> The problem with cachefs is that it needs to be a service provided to
> filesystems that fil
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> ...
>
>>It would be nice to see a commitment to closing any remaining gap as
>>much as possible, perhaps by further development of NFSv4 -- as others
>>have suggested.
>>
>>As a final note, I do recall that cachefs was supposed to be generic for
>>things like cdroms, e
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:31:51PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>
I confess that I didn't realize we lacked client side caching in our
NF
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 09:30:53PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > The materials have been updated.
> >
> > New materials:
> >
> > - passwd.1.txt
> >
> > Updated materials:
> >
> > - nsswitch.conf.4.txt
> > - the actual proposal (see nssad-details.txt)
>
> Also added: nsswitch.ad and r
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:54 -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 15:23 -0700, Kais Belgaied wrote:
> > could you include a delta of privileges(5) man page and the
> > out-of-the-box exec_attr(4), and dladm(1m)
> > as modified by this case?
>
> Here are the privileges(5) diffs.
Let
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 15:23 -0700, Kais Belgaied wrote:
> could you include a delta of privileges(5) man page and the
> out-of-the-box exec_attr(4), and dladm(1m)
> as modified by this case?
Here are the privileges(5) diffs. I'm not planning on making any
changes to exec_attr(4) nor dladm(1M).
Brian:
> If these interfaces are intended for Solaris users to make use of,
> then should the interfaces be Uncommitted rather than Volatile? It
> doesn't seem much good to provide interfaces for providing dialogs
> via shell scripts if the interfaces might change or break.
>
>
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:39:10PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:31:51PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >
> >>I confess that I didn't realize we lacked client side caching in our
> >>NFSv4. I thought client side caching was one of the sig
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>
>
>> I wouldn't say it's not important. Plenty of CD's on the list I sent out
>> earlier, right?
>>
>
> It it was important, why don't people ask for the feature?
>
Why did people build a piece of code that does the work in the first
p
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:31:51PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I confess that I didn't realize we lacked client side caching in our
> NFSv4. I thought client side caching was one of the significant
> benefits that NFSv4 brought to the table (mainly to compete with the
> likes of AFS and DFS
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> > It seems that cdrecord has this feature in its todo list,
> > but no one request that, it is not a important feature, right?
>
> I wouldn't say it's not important. Plenty of CD's on the list I sent out
> earlier, right?
It it was important, why don't people ask for t
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Personally I agree completely with the EOF of the current
> implementation, having been directly involved in supporting it in Sun
> Service and sustaining.
>
>
> However I disagree that we no longer need such functionality. I also
> find it
Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no
conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people want.
I think the important part is making sure the default is easily
changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default
programs control
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:38 -0700, Gary Winiger wrote:
> > create-secobj sys_dl_config, solaris.network.link.security
> > delete-secobj sys_dl_config, solaris.network.link.security
>
> I don't undestand these lines in the proposal. sys_dl_config
> is the new pr
rd use cue file ,which is much better than toc file, right?
If these 2 answers are all yes, we have no reason to integrate cdrdao
into Solaris,
since cdrecord can do most of work that cdrdao can do.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080728/fbc8a2c0/attachment.html>
Hi, all
So the conclusion from the discussion is
1. it doesn't matter to integrate projects with duplicated
functionality, we are aiming at providing the users with more choices
2. the project team will work together with project teams of similar
project to improve cooperation
3. Mime types of f
Brian
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:40 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Henry:
>
> >> What is the accessibility impact of this new mechanism of accessing
> >> "applet like things"? Does this "just work" with accessibility? If
> >> not, what is our plan to make it accessible?
> >
> > AWN is used to ma
Brian:
>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other
>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches
>> an other project? Why would this be different?
>
> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality,
> personally. I would just lik
Torrey:
>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other
>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that
>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different?
>>
>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality,
>> personally. I would j
if there's no more issues with this case, I'll close it as approve in 24
hours.
Thanks
--Irene
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:28 +0800, Irene Huang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I am setting the status of this case to be "waiting fast-track
> 07/29/2008"
>
> The new timeout is 07/29/2008
>
> Thanks
>
>
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 01:31:51PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> I confess that I didn't realize we lacked client side caching in our
>> NFSv4. I thought client side caching was one of the significant
>> benefits that NFSv4 brought to the table (mainly to compet
could you include a delta of privileges(5) man page and the
out-of-the-box exec_attr(4), and dladm(1m)
as modified by this case?
Kais
I'm submitting the following closed approved automatic fasttrack on behalf
of Jon Haslam and the DTrace community. It has been approved by the community
after discussion on dtrace-discuss at opensolaris.org. The stability is
Committed
and the binding is Patch.
Adam
---8<---
A. INTRODUCTION
Th
It seem to me that it would be helpful to have a registry of mine
extensions which projects
could check against. With planner and openproj these projects have
similar functionality,
but it is at least theoretically possible to have two very different
projects use the same
mime extensions.
I su
Darren,
I have updated the on-line proposal with Darren's answers.
Thanks,
John
Darren Kenny wrote:
>
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> John Fischer wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I am sponsoring this project for Darren Kenny from the Desktop
>>> group in Dublin, Ireland. The case materials contains the
>
> I hope this clears up the confusion.
+1
Gary..
> create-secobj sys_dl_config, solaris.network.link.security
> delete-secobj sys_dl_config, solaris.network.link.security
I don't undestand these lines in the proposal. sys_dl_config
is the new proposed privilege and enforced by the kernel.
sola
If there's any issues with this case, please send an email before the
deadline
Thanks
--Irene
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:30 +0800, Irene Huang wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> I am sponsoring this case. The time out is set to be 07/29/2008.
>
> Additional materials are posted at
> Internally
> http://s
Don Cragun wrote:
> What release binding are you requesting for this case?
>
> - Don
>
>
Looking for minor release binding.
--
Dan Hain
Solaris Revenue Product Engineering (RPE)
http://namefinder/NameFinder?nfquery=-s+88796
--
NOT
It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue
combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type
(or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the
default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one and
that is a decision to
I confess that I didn't realize we lacked client side caching in our
NFSv4. I thought client side caching was one of the significant
benefits that NFSv4 brought to the table (mainly to compete with the
likes of AFS and DFS).
If we don't have client side caching in NFSv4, then I too worry that
Closed as approved.
--Irene
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 11:57 +0800, Irene Huang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I am extending the timeout to be this Friday. If there's no more
> discussions, I'd assume that there's no more issues and will close the
> case then.
>
> If there any more issues, please send an e
So there's no blocking issues for this case, if there's no more
discussion for this case within 24 hours
I'll close this case as approved.
Thanks
--Irene
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 11:17 +0800, C Wang wrote:
> Brian:
>
>
> Brian Cameron ??:
> >
> > Chris:
> >
> >> Although the gqview is not
Jim Li wrote:
> Torrey:
Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other
projects come across lately that integrate functionality that
matches an other project? Why would this be different?
>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality,
>>> pers
David.Fan at Sun.COM wrote:
>
>
> I just chatted with Brendan Gregg. He has a concern about bonnie++ and
> filebench which is developed by PAE. Looks like PAE wants to be careful
> of what benchmark tool goes into Solaris. I will wait for the analysis
> from Brendan and PAE.
That is busine
I confess that I have a mixed mind about this. On the one hand, getting
rid of code that is unmaintained, or extraordinarily difficult or
expensive to maintain (with little real need) seems like a good idea.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that the need serviced by
cachefs is no
What release binding are you requesting for this case?
- Don
arc/attachments/20080728/3f2fc627/attachment.txt>
I'm submitting this fast-track for Nagakiran Rajashekar, timeout on
8/4/2008.
- Dan
Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.35 07/11/07 SMI
Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems
Sun Proprietary/Confidential: Internal Use Only: Engineering Need-to-Know
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working
> From gww at eng.sun.com Wed Jul 23 08:26:19 2008:
>
> > >4.2. Interfaces:
> > > Exported Interfaces
> > >Interface Classification Comments
> > > ------
> > > ---
> > > /usr/bin/cdrdao Volatile
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 06:04:33AM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> The manpages for libgnome and libgnomeui highlight these are Volatile.
> However, the GNOME community is in the process of making them deprecated.
> You should probably avoid using these unless there is a real need. You
> should get
Jerry Tan wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Dale Ghent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't know what all the rancor is about here...
>>>
>>> Regardless of the feature facts, it does look like cdrecord already
>>> does what cdrdao does, and the differing features could be added to
>>> cdrecord.
>>>
>>
Jim Li wrote:
> Torrey:
Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other
projects come across lately that integrate functionality that
matches an other project? Why would this be different?
>>>
>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality,
>>>
Jim Li writes:
> Torrey:
> > Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting
> > mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases.
> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so
> IMHO this is not a ARC issue.
Can you explain this statement in more
David Fan writes:
> Are you saying /usr/sfw is dead and no more software can go there? I
> have several more open source software that I plan to port. I would
> like to understand which directories to put the binaries.
/usr/sfw is indeed dead. PSARC 2005/185 "Enabling Serendipitous
Discovery"
Irene:
> So the conclusion from the discussion is
> 1. it doesn't matter to integrate projects with duplicated
> functionality, we are aiming at providing the users with more choices
To be clear, I think that ARC should be told when we integrate things
with duplicate functionality with other pr
James:
> The (attached) proposal is the completed FOSS checklist. No questions
> resulted in "ARC review required", but because of Brian Cameron's recent
> statement re. accessibility, I think it should be reviewed.
>
> But I do recall during the ARC[1] case for pgAdmin (which uses
> wxWidget
Danek:
> The imported interfaces appear to be ATK 1.x and GTK+ 2.x, which the GNOME
> cases have marked as committed for some time, as well as libgnome,
> libgnomevfs, and libgnomeui, none of which I'm sure of the stability.
> Brian (or JohnF), can you comment?
You can refer to the man pages for
56 matches
Mail list logo
