[ ... ]
>* How do you handle the inetd failures ? Inetd has a dependency on ksh and
> it took me several days of hacking to identify that the same
functionality
> exists in /usr/xpg4/bin/sh
That dependency actually isn't in inetd, it's in libc.
It just so happens that there's no ot
Ok, here's a copy of the panic:
UltraAXe(UltraSPARC-IIi 300MHz), PS/2 Keyboard
OpenBoot 3.14.1 ME , 256 MB memory installed, Serial #16280317.
Ethernet address 8:0:20:f8:6a:fd, Host ID: 80f86afd.
Unrecognized magic number in media label
Can't open disk label package
Unrecognized magic number
Heya,
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 18:36 -0700, Philip Machanick wrote:
> Does anyone have experience of installing and running on a GX520?
>
> I have a GX280 handy as well I've found that one mentioned a few times
> which looks promising, but I would have to move my Linux installation
> off it and so w
Does anyone have experience of installing and running on a GX520?
I have a GX280 handy as well I've found that one mentioned a few times which
looks promising, but I would have to move my Linux installation off it and so
would prefer to put OpenSolaris on the new machine if I can.
This message p
> Source is targeted for January, and in the interim, we hope to get
> binaries posted this week or next.
Great! Now that's one less issue to fight about! :)
Venky.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Bonnie Corwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The roadmap hasn't been updated (I'll look into that), but libm is coming.
>
> Source is targeted for January, and in the interim, we hope to get
> binaries posted this week or next.
I was planning to pubish my libm source soon also (after I had the time
The roadmap hasn't been updated (I'll look into that), but libm is coming.
Source is targeted for January, and in the interim, we hope to get
binaries posted this week or next.
Hope that helps.
Bonnie
Venky wrote On 10/25/05 16:40,:
>>The biggest compatibility problem of OpenSolaris (compared t
> The biggest compatibility problem of OpenSolaris (compared to Sun Solaris)
> is the fact that libm is not part of OpenSolaris.
I agree. And now, there are (at least) two separate attempts to develop
a replacement: one by you and one by Moinak for BeleniX. Do you think
it makes sense to start a
Mike,
The news hasn't changed much, I'm afraid. Alan Hargreaves has some
changes to support non-debug builds. I haven't had time to finish
reviewing them. It's currently #8 on my Todo list, but a couple of the
things above it are pretty big, so I don't know when I'll get to it.
No worries.
The news hasn't changed much, I'm afraid. Alan Hargreaves has some
changes to support non-debug builds. I haven't had time to finish
reviewing them. It's currently #8 on my Todo list, but a couple of the
things above it are pretty big, so I don't know when I'll get to it.
mike
_
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The biggest compatibility problem of OpenSolaris (compared to Sun Solaris)
> > is the fact that libm is not part of OpenSolaris.
> >
> > In case you don't know, it took me a full month already to work on
> > FreeBSD's libm in order to be halfway compati
ug maaa wawa bop!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 23:10 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>If you put them into /usr/bin, you will overwrite existing standard UNIX
> > >>tools
> >
> > This points out some large differences in people's perceptions of
> > "what is a Solaris app?"
John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>If you put them into /usr/bin, you will overwrite existing standard UNIX
> >>tools
>
> This points out some large differences in people's perceptions of
> "what is a Solaris app?" One perspective is a minimalist one,
> concerned with syscalls in libc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >and some other minor stuff. It is most unlikely that you did never have
> >a look at SchilliX and we all know, that knowing that/how something works
> >makes things a lot easier for people who do it the second time and are
> >not forced to develop everything from scratc
Ok,
So after the install of last week's Solaris Express, I see that I now have the
SUNWnge driver package installed. 'update_drv -a -i "pci10de,df" nge' now
proceeds without error, and the interface can be plumbed and used. However, the
configuration does not persist across reboots-I have to ma
Very valid point.
Would be nice if all opensolaris-based distros could guarantee to run
unmodified C binaries. There are quite a few ways to achive that.
Erast
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 11:22 -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> Erast Benson and Joerg Schilling were discussing GNU/Solaris:
> >>>GNU/Solaris d
I got panics booting from the b24 and b25 CDs on my UltraAXe. It gets
as far as the banner and the little spinning line and then barfs on
the screen. I haven't had a chance yet to do it over a serial console
to capture the data, but wanted to check if anyone else had a UltraAXe
that was working cor
>1. XFCE 4.2.2 ?
XFce 4.2.0 .
>2. Xorg 6.9 RC1 (CVS) - is this with the latest DRI
>drivers as well ?
Yes. I did a cvs update of the tree several hours back. I have also
included Firefox 1.5/ Thunderbird 1.5 Beta2, Gaim, XMMS, some of the
libraries from Gnome 2.12 with Cairo support
>TJ Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snipped...]
>> It is worng do discouge innovation but we should avoid unafforable
>> variations to drain the limited and free-time resources.
>>
>> I WISH we have one OpenSolaris LIVE CD, one embeded OpenSolaris, one
>> OpenSolaris Sparc and one OpenSoar
Erast Benson and Joerg Schilling were discussing GNU/Solaris:
GNU/Solaris distribution uses OpenSolaris kernel and runtime(libc). So,
it runs any existing Solaris software without modifications.
If you put them into /usr/bin, you will overwrite existing standard UNIX tools
This points out so
1. XFCE 4.2.2 ?
2. Xorg 6.9 RC1 (CVS) - is this with the latest DRI
drivers as well ?
If so this, this is great!
~Ken M.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> BTW BeleniX 0.2 is due out shortly and boots into a
> full Graphical XFce4 desktop
> on Xorg 6.9 RC1 (CVS). It has preliminary
> auto-config
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 15:20 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > let me clarify a little bit on what GNU/Solaris distro is.
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> > The idea behind it is simple: do not re-invent the wheel and try to
> > re-use existing 17000 high quality
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >Let us face reality...
>> >
>> >Belenix has been developped by starting with SchilliX
>> >and modifying it.
>>
>>Um ... I'd strongly object to this statement! It is correct
>>that 2 ideas were taken from the earlier discussions on this
>>list:
>>
>>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >Let us face reality...
>> >
>> >Belenix has been developped by starting with SchilliX
>> >and modifying it.
>>
>>Um ... I'd strongly object to this statement! It is correct
>>that 2 ideas were taken from the earlier discussions on this
>>list:
>>
>>
ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jörg,
>
> I have the kit and Schillix-0.2 so just need time to
> review.
>
> If someone already has X built for you then just tar
> up the binaries/libs and post them on the mirrors. I
> have tarballs of X 6.8.2 (CVS) compiled as well as in
> Solaris package f
TJ Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good short and insight comment about SchilliX distribution. The bigger
> problem is funding issue. I don't know solution for opensolaris funding
> issue. blastware was in trouble and now Schillix project.
> Sun has a good bussiness model by supporting Solar
Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SchilliX won't be able to compete with GNU/Solaris as a desktop. In the Linux
> and BSD world, distributions need to find a niche to remain popular. For
> SchilliX, this might be servers and the "authentic Solaris experience".
> You've done a great
Jörg,
I have the kit and Schillix-0.2 so just need time to
review.
If someone already has X built for you then just tar
up the binaries/libs and post them on the mirrors. I
have tarballs of X 6.8.2 (CVS) compiled as well as in
Solaris package formats. Take your pick. if you have a
natively built
James C. McPherson wrote:
Aaron Dailey wrote:
I'd like to propose a community dedicated to the storage software in
Open Solaris. This would include drivers below the filesystems/volume
managers, and related utilities.
For example, this would be:
-target drivers such as sd, st, ses
-SCSA frame
Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. GNU/Solaris sounds like it will be the ideal
> OpenSolaris desktop.
It would help people coming from the Linux corner.
It would most likely not fit my wishes.
... let us wait and see what it really is, once it is ava
Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it matter? One of the great features of open source is being able
> to save time and derive from other people's work, whether it be
> implicitly or explicitly.
>
> Our nascent community should be helping and supporting each other - not
> arguing si
Hi,
A while ago, Andy Tucker did write that /usr/lib/lu/lucreatezone
has been a shell script during the development of zones ahd that:
"Perhaps David or Dan could dig out some version of those scripts."
I would like to add zone support to SchilliX and it would be nice
if there was a way to make
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> let me clarify a little bit on what GNU/Solaris distro is.
Thank you!
> The idea behind it is simple: do not re-invent the wheel and try to
> re-use existing 17000 high quality Debian packages, Debian
> infrastracture(read Dpkg, APT repositories, Deboot
Does it matter? One of the great features of open source is being able
to save time and derive from other people's work, whether it be
implicitly or explicitly.
Our nascent community should be helping and supporting each other - not
arguing silly debates.
cheers,
steve
Joerg Schilling wrot
Aaron Dailey wrote:
I'd like to propose a community dedicated to the storage software in
Open Solaris. This would include drivers below the filesystems/volume
managers, and related utilities.
For example, this would be:
-target drivers such as sd, st, ses
-SCSA framework
-FibreChannel stack, v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Let us face reality...
> >
> >Belenix has been developped by starting with SchilliX
> >and modifying it.
>
>Um ... I'd strongly object to this statement! It is correct
>that 2 ideas were taken from the earl
We've gotten approval to use opensolaris.org as a download site, so we
should be able to bypass SDLC in the future. I'm not sure what the
timeframe is for providing downloads directly off of opensolaris.org
though. But that would certainly make it easier to automatically sync
up with genunix.
ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For innovative college students looking for the next
> big thing in software engineering:
>
> Coming to an OpenSolaris project near you:
>
> http://www.xpcgear.com/42i1cardreader.html
Why is there a need for a project?
This kind of devices work since Solaris
ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have X.org 6.8.2 libraries, binaries, and header
> packages built for Solaris 8/9/10 (x86/SPARC) over at
> Blastwave. Could these work for you?!?
I am not sure.
The Blastwave packages itself do not work at all because the pkg* tools
are missing on OpenSol
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 02:37 -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> What are our prospects of making OpenSolaris distributables avalible to
> mirrors via Rsync?
> Right now the reason Genunix updates are taking so long is because of
> the time involved; due to the monster URLs used by SDC I'm having to
> d
What are our prospects of making OpenSolaris distributables avalible to
mirrors via Rsync?
Right now the reason Genunix updates are taking so long is because of
the time involved; due to the monster URLs used by SDC I'm having to
download each file manually via a browser, then upload to genunix
42 matches
Mail list logo
