Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought certain big customers required the
certification. If so, that seems a surprising decision (though
whether or not it's put through the tests and given an official stamp
is probably not as much of a personal concern, and probably not
something someone outside of
John Plocher john.plocher at gmail.com wrote:
Worse yet (this is no surprise to most, I'm sure, but pity our poor users...):
On your new OpenSolaris system, create a tar archive of, say, your web
document root that you want to move over to another system: cd
/export/website; tar cf
Darren Reed Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote:
I'm led to believe that OpenSolaris won't pass the testing required to
be labelled Unix (the problems start with ZFS: there are parts of it
that aren't POSIX compliant) and as far as I know, nobody is interested
in doing so. This has been known for
Darren Reed wrote:
Octave,
I'm led to believe that OpenSolaris won't pass the testing required to
be labelled Unix (the problems start with ZFS: there are parts of it
that aren't POSIX compliant) and as far as I know, nobody is interested
in doing so. This has been known for quite some
Hi Joerg,
Exactly! The default should be the Solaris userland and users can select the
flavor they want by setting their path and other shell variables. It's a
strength for Solaris/OpenSolaris, not some weakness. Means we're more
compatible than Linux with the rest of the world:)
I still
On 03/10/10 07:28 PM, Garrett D'Amore - sun microsystems wrote:
Provide an opensource version of /usr/bin/sed and /usr/xpg4/bin/sed
+1
-Seb
Garrett,
The only question I have on this case is how versioning works. Are
there provisions in the API to handle drivers compiled on an older
version by either failing gracefully or by transparently handling
multiple versions? I can't tell from the materials if the
audio_dev_set_version()
On 03/24/10 07:01 AM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
Garrett,
The only question I have on this case is how versioning works. Are
there provisions in the API to handle drivers compiled on an older
version by either failing gracefully or by transparently handling
multiple versions? I can't tell
Milan Jurik Milan.Jurik at Sun.COM wrote:
In case that /usr/gnu would not hide Solaris specific features like it
is doing today, it is good solution probably. The problem is
that /usr/gnu is doing that (e.g. ACLs or linker). It is broken
architecture to hide significant features. Additionally
The project team would like to restart PSARC 2009/414 with a
modification that --man and --nroff will be removed. Since this is was
the reason I originally derailed the original case, now that those
contentious (to me at least) parts of the case have been removed, I
think it is fair to return
Sorry, I forgot to mention, --html (which is another format for man
pages) was *also* removed from this case.
-- Garrett
On 03/24/10 08:10 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The project team would like to restart PSARC 2009/414 with a
modification that --man and --nroff will be removed. Since
On 03/24/10 11:02 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 07:01 AM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
Garrett,
The only question I have on this case is how versioning works. Are
there provisions in the API to handle drivers compiled on an older
version by either failing gracefully or by transparently
Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
make?
Yes, GNU make, which behaves in a fashion totally unlike Sun make.
(Admittedly Sun make is in /usr/ccs/bin, not in /usr/gnu.)
Let me also mention that GNU make implements a makefile parser that
is not compatible with the POSIX
On 03/24/10 11:31 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 08:19 AM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
Right now the framework just ensures that the version number matches.
Conceivably in the future this could be used to detect the need for, and
enablement of, a compatibility layer perhaps like the GLDv2
Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
I don't mean for that at all. But the change of the default path is
being handled as part of PSARC 2010/067 -- i.e. that is the case (and
its still open) that started this whole mess. I'm not a fan of the fact
that the case is closed, but I
John Plocher john.plocher at gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
Again, I can't talk about the rationale for the bits that are closed being
so.
It is pretty clear that the reason it is closed is because Oracle
feels the features,
On 03/24/10 09:14 AM, michael.kearney at oracle.com wrote:
Are we having a meeting?
--
Best Regards, Michael
Oracle http://www.oracle.com
Michael Kearney | Principal Software Engineer
Phone: +1 3032722402 tel:+1%203032722402 | Fax: +1 3032726554
fax:+1%203032726554
Oracle Tikka
On 03/24/10 08:50 AM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 11:31 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 08:19 AM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
Right now the framework just ensures that the version number matches.
Conceivably in the future this could be used to detect the need
for, and
enablement of,
On 03/24/10 08:57 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Garrett D'Amoregdamore at sun.com wrote:
I don't mean for that at all. But the change of the default path is
being handled as part of PSARC 2010/067 -- i.e. that is the case (and
its still open) that started this whole mess. I'm not a fan
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The community has the ability to take those modifications, apply further
modifications, or create a new head of tree (essentially a code
fork). For example, Nexenta ships with a totally different userland.
Which userland does Nexenta ship ?
--Stefan
--
Stefan
On 03/24/10 10:04 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The community has the ability to take those modifications, apply
further modifications, or create a new head of tree (essentially a
code fork). For example, Nexenta ships with a totally different
userland.
Which
This case was approved at today's meeting.
://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20100324/1863c5b6/attachment.txt
This case was approved at PSARC today.
- Garrett
On 24/03/2010 17:04, Stefan Teleman wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
The community has the ability to take those modifications, apply
further modifications, or create a new head of tree (essentially a
code fork). For example, Nexenta ships with a totally different userland.
Which userland does
This case was approved at PSARC today, as modified (i.e. without --man,
--html, or --nroff.)
- Garrett
This case was approved at PSARC today.
- Garrett
I see no major issues with this case.
However the packaging will need to be different.
Probably one of these:
pkg:/library/security/openssl/perl/{aes,bignum,...}
pkg:/library/perl-5/openssl/{aes,bignum,...}
I think the second one is more likely as these are perl bindings for
openssl.
--
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I see no major issues with this case.
However the packaging will need to be different.
Probably one of these:
pkg:/library/security/openssl/perl/{aes,bignum,...}
pkg:/library/perl-5/openssl/{aes,bignum,...}
I think the second one is more likely as these are perl
On 03/24/10 11:07 AM, Hai-May Chao wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I see no major issues with this case.
However the packaging will need to be different.
Probably one of these:
pkg:/library/security/openssl/perl/{aes,bignum,...}
pkg:/library/perl-5/openssl/{aes,bignum,...}
I think the
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 11:07 AM, Hai-May Chao wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I see no major issues with this case.
However the packaging will need to be different.
Probably one of these:
pkg:/library/security/openssl/perl/{aes,bignum,...}
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE COUNCIL
Platform Software ARC
-
PSARC Regular Meeting time: Wednesdays 10:00-1:00pm in MPK17-3507.
03-24-2010 MEETING MINUTES
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/edit/Community+Group+arc/ARCAgenda/
= OpenSolaris ARC Agenda
= TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:
(866)545-5223 (Within US)
(215)446-3661 (International)
ACCESS CODE 939-55-86
Times are US/Pacific Timezone
ARC meetings are recorded.
03/31/2010
No meeting
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
package names -- clearly they are not Committed, since you know you'll
be changing them soon.
Package names should be no less than Committed, especially now that IPS
can refer to
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
package names -- clearly they are not Committed, since you know you'll
be changing them soon.
Package names should be no less than Committed, especially now
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:22:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
package names -- clearly they are not Committed, since you know you'll
be changing them soon.
Package names
On 24/03/10 04:26 AM, James Carlson wrote:
Darren Reed wrote:
Octave,
I'm led to believe that OpenSolaris won't pass the testing required to
be labelled Unix (the problems start with ZFS: there are parts of it
that aren't POSIX compliant) and as far as I know, nobody is interested
in
On 03/24/10 11:56 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:22:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
package names -- clearly they are not Committed, since you
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:15:30PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 11:56 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:22:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
On 03/24/10 03:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 03/24/10 11:56 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:22:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That's fine with me, but you need to fix the Committed value for your
package names -- clearly
Darren Reed Darren.Reed at sun.com wrote:
POSIX is a pretty low bar. Heck, even Minix and VxWorks and some
variants of Windows meet it. What you're saying appears to be quite
incendiary, and rather a slap at the folks who worked on ZFS.
Are you sure?
On 03/24/10 08:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
And BTW: I don't like to depend on a program that still comes with bugs that
have been accepted as bugs by it's maintainers in 1998.
The Solaris versions you know and love have many bugs filed against
them, lots of them more than merely 12 years
On 24/03/10 01:00 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
On 03/24/10 08:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
And BTW: I don't like to depend on a program that still comes with
bugs that
have been accepted as bugs by it's maintainers in 1998.
The Solaris versions you know and love have many bugs filed against
43 matches
Mail list logo
