J?rg, I don't recall if you were at the 1986 Denver usenix discussions that
yielded pax, but the rancor of the tar/cpio discussions up to that point
made it clear that a single tar or single cpio only solution would
be impossible -- basically a hung jury
since most of the disagreement was on the
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org on-disc...@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] [osol-discuss] [on-discuss]
Emergency project to rescue Opensolaris from IBM (was: Re: Possible IBM
aquisition of Sun)
Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
David Korn d...@research.att.com wrote:
Not to mention that it was star, Solaris added the lseek(f, pos, SEEK_HOLE)
for
to allow star to archive 100% accurate holey files.
Since pax is implemented using the sfio library for stdio it also
handles files with holes. In fact the AST cp
Glenn Fowler g...@research.att.com wrote:
J?rg, I don't recall if you were at the 1986 Denver usenix discussions that
yielded pax, but the rancor of the tar/cpio discussions up to that point
made it clear that a single tar or single cpio only solution would
be impossible -- basically a hung
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Glenn Fowler g...@research.att.com wrote:
J?rg, I don't recall if you were at the 1986 Denver usenix discussions that
yielded pax, but the rancor of the tar/cpio discussions up to that point
made it
Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
why are we having this argument? I believe it leads nowhere. Any open
source tool aiming to replace the closed bits should just go through
formal review like the rest of the changes do. These discussions are a
waste of time and bandwidth
star
Ignacio Marambio Cat=E1n darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
why are we having this argument? I believe it leads nowhere. Any op=
en
source tool aiming to replace the closed bits should just go throug=
h
formal review like the rest of the changes do. These discussions ar=
e a
waste of time and
And what happened after the review was aprobed exactly? were test
packages provided? someone at sun checked them for compliance and code
review? why? why not?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
And what happened after the review was aprobed exactly? were test
packages provided? someone at sun checked them for compliance and code
review? why? why not?
Jörg is only interested in trolling and vaporware announcements. He's
On 3/25/09, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
why are we having this argument? I believe it leads nowhere. Any open
source tool aiming to replace the closed bits should just go through
formal review like the rest
This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true, wasnt he the
one that created the first opensolaris distribution with schillix? i'd
say that ia a fairly big contribution because i'm sure others built
from that work.
2009/3/25 Jennifer Pioch piochjenni...@googlemail.com:
On 3/25/09,
Jennifer Pioch piochjenni...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
And what happened after the review was aprobed exactly? were test
packages provided? someone at sun checked them for compliance and code
review? why? why not?
Jörg is only
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true,
When did Jörg contribute a line of code which is now part of ON or
SFW? Time, date and location, please.
Really, I'm upset about Jörgs flame wars, spitting and pissing against
Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true, wasnt he the
one that created the first opensolaris distribution with schillix? i'd
say that ia a fairly big contribution because i'm sure others built
from that work.
thank you for
For me, finishing the star integration is some kind of
verification on whether OpenSolaris is a project where it is possible to
implement previous agreements - so it is a matter of credibility of the
OpenSolaris project.
For you, yes. For others it's probably not that important.
As you are
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true,
Noises deleted
If Jörg continues this path I'd propose to throw Mr. Jörg out of
opensolaris.
I agree that *someone* should be banned out of the OpenSolaris
community
On 3/25/09, Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org wrote:
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
This isnt very constructive either, it is also not true,
Noises deleted
If Jörg continues this path I'd propose to throw Mr. Jörg out of
opensolaris.
I agree
On 3/25/09, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Jennifer Pioch piochjenni...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 3/25/09, Ignacio Marambio Catán darkjo...@gmail.com wrote:
And what happened after the review was aprobed exactly? were test
packages provided? someone at sun
casper@sun.com wrote:
For me, finishing the star integration is some kind of
verification on whether OpenSolaris is a project where it is possible to
implement previous agreements - so it is a matter of credibility of the
OpenSolaris project.
For you, yes. For others it's probably not
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:18:17 +0100, Josh Hurst wrote:
FYI joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
has been banned from the
kernel.org and Freebsd lists, maybe Opensolaris should do the same.
And?A! Bingo! Eat s**t – a zillion flies can’t be wrong.
--
Best regards,
Cemasko Viktor.
20 matches
Mail list logo
