On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:42:30PM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> As an OGB
> > member, I don't
> > have the time to do all that,
> > --
> > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
> > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any
> > direction!"
> > ___
Check out man page of lucreate , luupgrade, luactivate, lustatus just setup a
unused slice and label as root under format
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Yes please. I'm assuming that since the proposal's been up for > 1 week and
there's been at least 1 +1 things should be able to proceed.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> >I'm glad you brought this up. I'm working on establishing test
> >resources on opensolaris.org (ie. self-service testing and test farm),
> >and need a way to limit who gets access, since I won't be able to
> >support everyone with an OpenSolaris user name.
> >
> >I'm targeting non-Sun code contr
> But the question of multimedia codecs has already
> been answered, and the answer isn't the command line
> interface. The real answer is "include by default
> all the desirable codecs you can, and then make it
> easy to install any leftovers from your app
> installation GUI". That standard has
As an OGB
> member, I don't
> have the time to do all that,
> --
> Keith M Wesolowski"Sir, we're surrounded!"
> FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any
> direction!"
> ___
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> openso
Jim Walker wrote:
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
designations we give to people - contributor and community
leader are amongst these.
I'd like to propose that how "contributor" status is designated
such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a
position to
On Jun 5, 2007, at 01:37, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough, I've gone and
My personal feelings about relevance aren't worth a hill of beans. If
the Desktop Group believes exploring t
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:23:30PM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> So since the Desktop seemingly isn't relevant enough, I've gone and
My personal feelings about relevance aren't worth a hill of beans. If
the Desktop Group believes exploring this work to be within its
charter, it's free to do so.
Jim Walker wrote:
This would mean anyone who has signed the Sun Contributor Agreement
or is an employee of a company that has (ie. Sun).
I'm glad you brought this up. I'm working on establishing test
resources on opensolaris.org (ie. self-service testing and test farm),
and need a way to limit
Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:09:38AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> So, can we just do it? I have powers to create a mail alias to start getting
>> some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead and do it? Some web space
>> would be nice, but not essential.
>>
>> Ho
On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Brian Gupta wrote:
...
Various drivers behind an effort to produce OSH.
1) There is a desire for a minimal/core OpenSolaris distro, that other
distro packagers can leverage to create their own distros. Building a
distro from this core *may*, in the future, allow oth
On 6/3/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Gupta wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> I have made an effort to incorporate your comments into a new list.
>
> Primary Drivers:
> --
> 1) There is a desire for a minimal/core OpenSolaris distro, that other
> distro packagers can
James Carlson wrote:
John Mark Walker writes:
Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following
is my best attempt at an answer:
James Carlson wrote:
It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
that focus on different needs and different
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:09:38AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> So, can we just do it? I have powers to create a mail alias to start getting
> some plans discussed [1] - should I just go ahead and do it? Some web space
> would be nice, but not essential.
>
> How do we get this moving forward?
Fi
Optional files should definitely be stored exclusively with optional files.
But the question of multimedia codecs has already been answered, and the answer
isn't the command line interface. The real answer is "include by default all
the desirable codecs you can, and then make it easy to install
Hey,
Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Me too. In fact for me it's the CRUX of the whole problem.
> (Assuming this project still wants to be Sun-derived.) It's
> THE single show-stopper. In other words, without it, then I'd
> be happy to see the project go forward as-is.
So, can we just do it? I have power
> Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
> designations we give to people - contributor and community
> leader are amongst these.
>
> I'd like to propose that how "contributor" status is designated
> such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a
> position to do a p
> > 1. I think the way it is structured is perfect
> (what
> > else could be easier than simply executing a
> one-line
> > command?).
>
> "Not executing a one-line command" is far easier :)
Of course theoretically someone can always negotiate a set of licenses to
include, respectively, mplayer
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:03:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed.
> *Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one.
Everyone can. A Contributor is, not to be glib, someone who has
contributed. Removing barriers to contribution is something we sho
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[Added ogb-discuss, since that's where any real change has to
happen - opensolaris-discuss will get you nothing useful.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
designations we give to people - contributor and community
leade
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed.
*Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one.
Then you're basically redefining it to be the same as "Participant",
which is anyone who filled out the registration form on opensolaris.org,
includ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimately, I'd like to see it removed.
*Everyone* should be a contributor or able to be one.
Then you're basically redefining it to be the same as "Participant",
which is anyone who filled out the registration form on opensolaris.org,
including those who did so just to
> 1. I think the way it is structured is perfect (what
> else could be easier than simply executing a one-line
> command?).
"Not executing a one-line command" is far easier :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
> Actually all the actions other than mplayer codec
> pack should be integrated in SX, I mean since there
> is the technology and there isn't legal issue, asking
> extra labor is not adopter friendly whatsoever.
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan.
>
1. I think the way it is structured is perfect (what else co
On 04/06/07, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually all the actions other than mplayer codec
he did say ---^^
My point stands. Just about anything that requires a codec requires a
patent license.
--
"Less is only more where more is no go
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
designations we give to people - contributor and community
leader are amongst these.
I'd like to propose that how "contributor" status is designated
such that it is granted to anyone an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
> designations we give to people - contributor and community
> leader are amongst these.
>
> I'd like to propose that how "contributor" status is designated
> such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is
[Added ogb-discuss, since that's where any real change has to
happen - opensolaris-discuss will get you nothing useful.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
designations we give to people - contributor and community
leader are amongst these.
Contr
Within the OpenSolaris community, we have some arbitrary
designations we give to people - contributor and community
leader are amongst these.
I'd like to propose that how "contributor" status is designated
such that it is granted to anyone and everyone that is in a
position to do a putback or com
>Good point. I
> don't understand why there are so many
> people against
> something new that can be potentially good for the
> community, if they
> think is not needed, they shouldn't contribute,
> and that's all. I would
> like to see more constructive approaches to this
> issue. We have
> anyth
> On 6/4/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Eric Boutilier wrote:
> >
> > >> Given how negative this community is on Linux...
> > >
> > > But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on
> opensolaris.org besides
> > > this
> > > list one finds the complete opposite, namely,
> flexib
> > Actually all the actions other than mplayer codec
he did say ---^^
-
> > pack should be integrated in SX, I mean since there
> > is the technology and there isn't legal issue, asking
> > extra labor is not adopter friendly whatsoever.
> >
> > Cheers,
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:34:07PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
That means that it was voted on at a meeting but must be off in a faq or
minutes somewhere that each community member needs to track down.
A draft of the policy plus a few changes was a
> > > > Also, 64-bit SPARC and AMD are known to be
> > > designated as "sparcv9" and "amd64". What will be the
> > > formal designation of a 64-bit PPC CPU on Solaris?
> > >
> > > See above
> >
> > BTW, as a general question, is there a reliable way to detemine the
> "mapping" between an ISA and
UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Also, 64-bit SPARC and AMD are known to be
> > designated as "sparcv9" and "amd64". What will be the
> > formal designation of a 64-bit PPC CPU on Solaris?
> >
> > See above
>
> BTW, as a general question, is there a reliable way to detemine the "mappin
On 04/06/07, Ivan Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 6562225 NVIDIA performance on AGP systems can be
> > terrible on b65
> >
> > (Since the nvidia drivers are closed source, the
> bug
> > is not
> > visible on bugs.opensolaris.org - you can tell if
> > it affects you
> > by checking dmesg/sysl
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
+1. Can we have our list now?
+1 from me for what it's worth. In other words getting that resource (a
list) typically goes hand-in-hand with a project going from proposal status
to community-approved status, but I'm pretty sure that's just protocol, not
> > 6562225 NVIDIA performance on AGP systems can be
> > terrible on b65
> >
> > (Since the nvidia drivers are closed source, the
> bug
> > is not
> > visible on bugs.opensolaris.org - you can tell if
> > it affects you
> > by checking dmesg/syslog for a nvidia driver error
> > such as:
> > vidi
On 6/4/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
>> Given how negative this community is on Linux...
>
> But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides
> this
> list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
> non-zealotry,
This just in: Plastic SCM is currently in unofficial testing phase on Solaris!
See
http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2007/03/plastic-running-on-solaris-10-sparc.html
and
http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2007/05/linus-torvalds-on-git-and-scm.html
(search for "OpenSolaris").
For screenshots
> I am not sure what purpose you need this for, but in
> some cases (path
> in /usr/lib
> for example) it is just
>
> 32 -> 64
>
> which makes it quite simple and obvious without even
> need to determine it
> dynamically.
That's exactly why I need it!
I have built a foundation package for my own
> 4) Sun (Ian/Indiana/Others) wants a second Solaris distro that will be
> the Fedora to Sun's RHEL (Solaris). They wish to do this and still leave
> a clear migration path from one distro to another. (Unlike Fedora).
Yes! I think we can all get behind this sort of vision. But making a better
F
Eric Boutilier wrote:
Given how negative this community is on Linux...
But when one looks literally *anywhere* else on opensolaris.org besides
this
list one finds the complete opposite, namely, flexibility, diversity,
non-zealotry, and non-fear. And with that in mind, it's really, really key
Alberto wrote:
> thanks but can i update my solaris eith build55 or i have to reinstall all ?
>
>
You should be able to upgrade. Download the latest (build 65) and give
it a go. Either way, a newer build would appear to be your only option.
Ian
___
45 matches
Mail list logo
