Hi All,
I would like to share FUSE library used by me for testing FUSE kernel.
FUSE-2.5.3 was used as base and some modifications were made for testing.
FUSE-2.5.3 has mount operation as separate utility which is invoked from
within library. I have short circuited this for testing. The
Cyril Plisko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/06, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are other reasons too. At least one of the AHCI team member
has his (previously working) email address rejected with
550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown
Maybe he was the target of a
Desktop release: drop CDE,add boot splash,more new
code from opensolaris new projects into the sys
tem,more GTK+ apps and tools (for example...)
Enterprise Release: maintain a strong compatibity
with old software and hardware (for example...)
I think it's a requirement for both to keep
Link not working...?
tx
e1
www.singanix.org
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Yes,Yes you have exactly focused the problem.I haven't explained my thought
very well.Sorry! We have realized that today for different reasons, this is not
a practical way.However we have opensolaris and an x86 centric community around
it.This should be a good start point for the future devel
Hi all,
[ please CC me on replies ]
I'm part time fixing some bugs in Nexenta, and I have for a second time
hit the bug, where library libA.so has been linked against some other
shared library libB.so and some symbols were incorrectly resolved to be
at absolute address 0x0. Note that I'm
De Togni Giacomo wrote:
This should be a good start point for the future
This doesn't need to be a far future vision; nor does it
need to be something that Sun Engineers need to do by
themselves.
One of my visions:
Without preventing anyone from choosing to go down different
paths, it would
I'm part time fixing some bugs in Nexenta, and I have for a second time
hit the bug, where library libA.so has been linked against some other
shared library libB.so and some symbols were incorrectly resolved to be
at absolute address 0x0. Note that I'm talking about symbols
representing
Martin Man wrote:
I'm just curious why this happens, what these symbols mean, and what are
they used for. Seems that GNU ld is picking them up in situations where
it shouldn't be, and I would like to reproduce a test case where ld can
deliberately exhibit this bug.
...
P.S. an excerpt of
$
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 11/16/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This should be fixed now..
Should the on-changelog-b52.html list all the changes ?
'cause there is a new package SUNWamd8111s in
usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWamd8111s/* and it is mentioned
nowhere in the changelog.
Are there any
Hi Jan,
* Jan Pechanec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
hi all,
together with my colleague Vladimir Kotal we wrote a presentation
called Simple Solaris Installation for CZOSUG bootcamp summarizing all the
necessary installation steps and some important stuff users might probably
Yeps... got that problem in my b43. Fixed it.
I got to command line mode and ran fc-cahe manually. Of course, it dumped core
again. Then I ran it under strace/truss. This gave me an indication of what
files it was working with when it faulted. It was some font in
/usr/X11R6/lib/fonts/
I
It's not just about nostalgia or I-know-it attitude. I am one of the typical
young user of Solaris and I find CDE more productive than either GNOME or KDE.
It's not just the desktop, but the associated utilities. The integrated
calendar works and is far more intuitive than most others (even
Thanks for the help. The -force was all it required and it has been working
fine ever since.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
snip
http://blogs.sun.com/vlad/entry/simple_solaris_installation
Looks good. One change, starting with build 52 of nevada, you also need
to add the SUNWlucfg package (along with SUNWluu and SUNWlur) prior to
running live upgrade.
I have actually spoken about this package with Jan
This page:
https://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/onnv_putback_logs/
...is apparently missing.
I got to it by signing in and then clicking on the link to the putback
logs. On my full-screen browser, that link's about 1/4 way down the
page on screen.
DSL
Hi David,
Whoops...the page should be visible now. Though, as noted on
the page - it only has older archived logs. All the new logs are
archived in the download centre with their respective deliveries.
cheers,
steve
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 04:57:45PM +1030, David Lloyd wrote:
This
17 matches
Mail list logo
