On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:11:39AM -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, for the stuff that hasn't been opened yet, is
> there any possibility of reprioritizing? For example, it's been said on
Yes, but understand that in many cases it's not up to us; the
organisation that own
> 2) xsvc is a hack that should be replaced by a proper /dev/mem
I think /dev/mem is unusable, /dev/mem maps the most of RAM/RWM memory and not
ROM/FLASH (or RAM/RWM copy of ROM/FLASH) memory where APCI tables reside.
/dev/mem is driven by 'phys_install' memlist (
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/sou
my build machine is an x86/amd64 box with 512 meg ram and 40gig harddrive.
below is sort of what you need to do to build your new kernel.
hi, well i am new to opensolaris but not new to unix. do you know unix at all?
i was able to build the new kernel with its corresponding modules by just
foll
On 7/23/05, Sunil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "grep /var/sadm/install/contents |awk '{print $1}'" to see which
> files were installed by a package? when is this simple request going to be
> merged in 'pkginfo -l'?
Workaround example:
pkgchk -v SUNWGtku
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems A
"grep /var/sadm/install/contents |awk '{print $1}'" to see which
files were installed by a package? when is this simple request going to be
merged in 'pkginfo -l'?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolari
Laca wrote:
As far as I understand, the main problem with multiple versions
(apart from the increased maintenance effort) is that different
versions of the same lib may end up linked to the same executable
(through dependent libs) and it'll cause unpredictable runtime
linking and most likely a c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shawn Walker wrote:
> Forgive me if it seems that way, but I have spent a great deal of time
> reading through responses given by the Debian project and have seen
> time and time again the numerous restrictions they place on software.
> They have rejec
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:26:58PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
>
> > Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source?
>
> In truth we're not allowed to tell you why it's not there, but you
> could read our VP's blog at
> http
>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Garett Spalo wrote:
>
>> Anyone got any packages for Laptop Power Management, or just Power
>> Management in general?
>
>Casper blogged about the availability of the APIC stuff recently.
>Give that a try (in my experience, it works well).
That's just the powernow stuff for
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Garett Spalo wrote:
> Anyone got any packages for Laptop Power Management, or just Power Management
> in general?
Casper blogged about the availability of the APIC stuff recently.
Give that a try (in my experience, it works well).
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Garett Spalo wrote:
> I just downloaded the BFU and ON Tools to install from pre built
> archives. Problem is, I'm new and I don't have a clue how to do
> anything yet. I read the release notes and the developer's TOC, but no
> luck, I don't understand what an environment is
I just downloaded the BFU and ON Tools to install from pre built archives.
Problem is, I'm new and I don't have a clue how to do anything yet. I read the
release notes and the developer's TOC, but no luck, I don't understand what an
environment is. Can anyone just tell me the commands to type
Anyone got any packages for Laptop Power Management, or just Power Management
in general?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Does it matter?
Absolutely, what did you think? Depeding on which grounds the ata driver has
been "held", it's relatively easy to get a feel how long it'll be before it's
released. (Trust me, I've been involved in these things before.)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Like I said earlier, both camps (opensolaris and debian) aren't too thrilled
about the idea. I've already discovered that. The good news is that
debian-legal finally pointed out the exact problem with the CDDL as it relates
to the DFSG, instead of just saying they don't know and throw it on
inc
15 matches
Mail list logo
