No, on the contrary, nightly builds are only against OpenSolaris.
It could not start on b132, because an old bug was triggered by a change
between snv_131 and snv_132.
You can use LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./firefox to get around.
Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH may also get around, but I don't understand why.
Gary g_patri...@yahoo.com wrote:
I would doubt Oracle would continue to let licensed binary bits of Solaris be
a continued part of an open source project. Likely those binary bits would
have to be recoded and not contain any Sun copyrighted code. A large part of
the source code is still
Not that one again :(
On 5 February 2010 10:55, Ginn Chen ginn.c...@sun.com wrote:
No, on the contrary, nightly builds are only against OpenSolaris.
It could not start on b132, because an old bug was triggered by a change
between snv_131 and snv_132.
You can use LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./firefox to
I'm curious why your e-mail response is not here? Do you worry about something?
Our efforts emphasize portability, standardization, correctness,
proactive security and integrated cryptography.
only 2 of 5 things are about security. Anyway anyone who connects his/her
Hello,
I have just upgraded from b131 to b132 on my home server.
Everything worked very well : pkg image-update.
I was just wondering how to upgrade my non-global zones, and was a bit worried
because I used to run sparse zones and thought I was stuck with full upgrade of
the zone.
However I
OK understood
Thanks
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I noticed that :
# /bin/ps --help
/bin/ps: illegal option -- help
usage: ps [ -aAdefHlcjLPyZ ] [ -o format ] [ -t termlist ]
[ -u userlist ] [ -U userlist ] [ -G grouplist ]
[ -p proclist ] [ -g pgrplist ] [ -s sidlist ] [ -z zonelist ] [-h
lgrplist]
On second thought it seems the ps command is switchning between bsd behaviour
(old /usr/ucb/ps) if options are not preceded with '-' and new solaris
behaviour if there is a '-'
Is that correct ?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
On second thought it seems the ps command is switchning between bsd behaviour
(old /usr/ucb/ps) if
options are not preceded with '-' and new solaris behaviour if there is a '-'
Is that correct ?
Almost.
This is what the main routine in ps look like today:
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
For some reason Firefox 3.6 (tar.gz version) won't
start in b132 (it worked in b131).
Looks like the nightly build was built only against S10? Please this not be
the case; so many people have worked so hard on OpenSolaris!
The NVIDIA graphics driver is only built on S10.
Binary
Ok
Thanks for your detailed explanation !!!
Bruno
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 03/02/2010 12:25, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Toshiba R600, up-to snv_129 X is working fine.
snv_131 and the moment Xorg starts the notebook does hard-reset (quick
power-off) - no crash dump, no nothing, When I booted under kernel
debugger the
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:27:48 +0100, Casper.Dik-UdXhSnd/wVw wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:33:27 -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
PLEASE GO READ THE MAILING LIST ARCHIVES.
This question has been asked, discussed, and answered by several folks
(myself included) in fairly exhaustive detail, a
I'll ask any question I want, so GFY!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
No, on the contrary, nightly builds are only against
OpenSolaris.
Thanks, it always helps to know this is the case.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Gary wrote:
I'll ask any question I want, so GFY!
Last warning: another mail like that and you'll be removed from the
mailing list.
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:27:48 +0100, Casper.Dik-UdXhSnd/wVw wrote:
Unless, of course, google is now sponsoring people to post such remarks;
then it is fruitful for the person who tells you to use google?
Are you in the pay of Big Oil^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGoogle
I wish :-)
Be
I'll ask any question I want, so GFY!
Chinese using a Western name talks about using real
names!
Message was edited by: gpatrick
It is way beyond my dignity to even read your post, but my great great grand
father immigrated from China to Maui some time after the Civil War, I am
Thanks to all developers for good dev release :) If it contained rlwrap, it
would be priceless...
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Thanks for the answers, it is clear now. As far as using URL's I have no
problem with that however, since here we have the opportunity to 'talk'
directly Oracle/Sun developpers I thaught I'd ask.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
After I've watched both sites for awhile, I noticed everything happens in the
.org website and only whenever there is a new realease that (.com) comes alive.
The image projected with opensolaris.com is corporate and opensolaris.org is
for dev. Since opensolaris is not intended for the Enterprise
as far as PC clones goes:
What about a release cycle that last for years, nevermind this every
6month/1year crap. which is what crash n burn Ubuntu does.
None of these will fill the gap as good as 1 major release and updates follow
(aka, the way Windows does it, yes Windows, ie: WinXP for years
Thanks to all developers for good dev release :) If it contained rlwrap,
it would be priceless...
I'm still holding my breath for a 100% functional version of the lsof utility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsof
to be integrated in to OpenSolaris. Trying to use pfiles shell scripts to grep
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:48 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:15 +, Ghee Teo wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote
But hey, let's take an optimistic stance and assume Oracle doesn't let
OpenSolaris die on the vine - if/when we actually do get another
On 02/ 5/10 01:13 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
If OS was able to maintain at twice per year release cycle I should
think this wouldn't be a problem. I realize things have been a bit
unsettling for Sun employees this past year (all the ones I know
personally were RIF'd.) and that that has likely
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:54 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/ 3/10 11:32 AM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:15 +, Ghee Teo wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote
But hey, let's take an optimistic stance and assume Oracle doesn't let
OpenSolaris die on the vine - if/when we
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 19:54 +, Calum Benson wrote:
On 3 Feb 2010, at 17:54, Shawn Walker wrote:
However, as you are aware, GNOME release schedules slip too sometimes :)
Actually, they very rarely do... from memory, I think the GNOME community
have only slipped their release once in
Rick N wrote:
as far as PC clones goes:
What about a release cycle that last for years, nevermind this every
6month/1year crap. which is what crash n burn Ubuntu does.
None of these will fill the gap as good as 1 major release and updates follow
(aka, the way Windows does it, yes Windows, ie:
On 02/ 5/10 01:25 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:54 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
However, as you are aware, GNOME release schedules slip too sometimes :)
Huh?? I'm having a hard time remembering the last time Gnome slipped
release schedule. Quit spreading untruths, else
On 02/ 5/10 01:27 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
I've been busy with other things the past couple days and just now
getting caught up on this thread. Thank you for your timely correction
of Shawn's spin doctoring of the facts.
I didn't *spin* anything, I just said that they slipped sometimes. But
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 15:41 +, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:12:22 -0700, Ken Gunderson wrote:
Hello:
Perhaps OpenSolaris should consider adopting a once per year release cycle
since twice per year is evidently unmanageable. At the very least I
should think it would be a
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 09:18 -0800, Peter Jones wrote:
Clearly the release cycle has a number of facets..The speed of required
adoption for software products,phase of the development cycle, and the speed
of development afforded by internal development resources.In todays world
everyone
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:52 -0800, R. Eenigne wrote:
It's really just a firewall. Once you install other pkgs then you're on your
own.
What planet are you from? I've used OBSD since 2.x days - that's over a
decade - as mailservers, webservers, firewalls, routers, desktop, etc.
deployments
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 05:22 -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If Oracle pulled the plug on OpenSolaris wouldn't it die?
If oracle pulled the plug ... what precisely does that mean? They don't
own it. They can't forbid anyone from using it. But they do contribute a
lot to it.
So let's
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 21:43 -0800, Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Bullshit.
Well said Alan! This FUD's getting tedious.
Agreed.
BTW alanc, speaking purely for myself, I happen to think OpenSolaris is
pretty darn awesome, and I'm very appreciative of the efforts
build 132 seems to work fine. And... The zpool scrub errors are gone. That
pretty much clinches that I tripped over some zfs bug that is now fixed.
SXCE 46-124 - no scrub errors (I believe 120 had the odd-disk raidz checksum
bug so I skipped that)
OSOL 111b - random scrub errors
(unable
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:18 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/ 5/10 01:13 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
If OS was able to maintain at twice per year release cycle I should
think this wouldn't be a problem. I realize things have been a bit
unsettling for Sun employees this past year (all the
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:32 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/ 5/10 01:25 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:54 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
However, as you are aware, GNOME release schedules slip too sometimes :)
Huh?? I'm having a hard time remembering the last time Gnome
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 11:27 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
Rick N wrote:
as far as PC clones goes:
What about a release cycle that last for years, nevermind this every
6month/1year crap. which is what crash n burn Ubuntu does.
None of these will fill the gap as good as 1 major release and
Trying to upgrade from b127 to b132. After working around some other
bugs, pkg image-update succeeded, but left me with a BE with a stupid
name. I tried to rename it (while still running in the old BE) but
it fails saying unmount failed. truss shows that it's trying to
unmount /! Yow, that's
On 02/ 5/10 02:39 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
Trying to upgrade from b127 to b132. After working around some other
bugs, pkg image-update succeeded, but left me with a BE with a stupid
name. I tried to rename it (while still running in the old BE) but
it fails saying unmount failed. truss shows
Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 11:27 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
What you describe is /EXACTLY/ what happens with Solaris 10. And will
happen in good time with Solaris Next (aka Solaris 11 or whatever it
gets called).
For now (and, likely even post-Solaris Next), OpenSolaris
snip
In any case, there's plenty of reason for folks
outside Sun/Oracle to
build their own distro to cater to their needs
snip
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
One of the most significant but often overlooked advantages of
Shawn Walker wrote on 02/ 5/10 12:49 PM:
On 02/ 5/10 02:39 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
Trying to upgrade from b127 to b132. After working around some other
bugs, pkg image-update succeeded, but left me with a BE with a stupid
name. I tried to rename it (while still running in the old BE) but
it
Remove me then. I couldn't care less, that clown was out of line as well.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:03 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 11:27 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
What you describe is /EXACTLY/ what happens with Solaris 10. And will
happen in good time with Solaris Next (aka Solaris 11 or whatever it
gets
Brandon High wrote:
Is there a list of bugs in b132? I'd like to know if the sharesmb
name= bug has been fixed before upgrading.
Can't you check the bug database?
--
Ian.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Ken Gunderson wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. I interpreted previous comments from
an opensolaris.org address earlier in the thread that such was never the
case.
Note that anyone who signs up for an account can get an opensolaris.org
address, and having one does not indicate any
On 02/ 5/10 03:58 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 13:03 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
...
6 months is a goal, not a firm commitment on anyone's part - this is
Development, not Release Engineering. :-)
Thank you for the clarification. I interpreted previous comments from
an
On 02/ 5/10 11:00 PM, Brandon High wrote:
Is there a list of bugs in b132? I'd like to know if the sharesmb
name= bug has been fixed before upgrading.
-B
It should be fixed.
I use this: gem
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b132/on-changelog-b132.html
Adjust the b??? in the URL if
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:45:13 -0800, Erik Trimble wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:27:48 +0100, Casper.Dik-UdXhSnd/wVw wrote:
Unless, of course, google is now sponsoring people to post such
remarks; then it is fruitful for the person who tells you to use
google?
Are you in the
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
52 matches
Mail list logo
