On 07/17/10 01:38 PM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
On 17 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Paul Gress wrote:
On 07/17/10 09:07 AM, Ken Mays wrote:
Ken, what you say make a lot of sense. But when I look at those
community distributions I don't see what I'm exactly looking for. So
I guess I going to try to
It may even be seek times are the main problem...
True. Too much concurrency on spinning platters can
cause seek time bottlenecks. Possibly an iostat log
during boot can provide some clues. If true then the
situation will be better with SSDs.
We have DTrace and we might
To: Hernán Saltiel Community User Groups
The community needs resources to maintain the components updated by the various
teams. For the upcoming Hackathon and user meetings, users interested
in building a 'community distro' or providing support for it should know where
to look for help.
The
Hi, Ken!
This *really* help us!
Thanks a lot, I'll start contacting the referred POC's.
Best regards,
HeCSa.
On 07/25/10 01:44 PM, Ken Mays wrote:
To: Hernán Saltiel Community User Groups
The community needs resources to maintain the components updated by the various
teams. For the upcoming
Moinak Ghosh moin...@belenix.org wrote:
I am taking guesses here but I suspect this boot performance may
be relative. AFAIK SMF does not restrict the extent of concurrency.
So if there are 100 non-interdependent services ready to be started
at the current graph state then it will
Hi Alan,
I'm taking a stab at this but I heard Joerg mentioned an issue with moving
beyond ON snv_130. Then, you brought up some things about not being able to
build ON 135+, X b143+, GNOME/JDS, and a few things without IPS being a part of
the distro. So, IPS is definitely on the menu.
Can
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Moinak Ghosh moin...@belenix.org wrote:
I am taking guesses here but I suspect this boot performance may
be relative. AFAIK SMF does not restrict the extent of concurrency.
So if there are 100
Ken Mays wrote:
Hi Alan,
I'm taking a stab at this but I heard Joerg mentioned an issue with moving
beyond ON snv_130. Then, you brought up some things about not being able to
build ON 135+, X b143+, GNOME/JDS, and a few things without IPS being a part
of the distro. So, IPS is
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update
his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134?
I'm guessing you're talking to me? I have no idea what Joerg needs, but
we've
already provided
--- On Sat, 7/24/10, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Ken Mays wrote:
Hi Alan,
I'm taking a stab at this but I heard Joerg mentioned
an issue with moving beyond ON snv_130. Then, you brought up
some things about not being able to build ON 135+, X b143+,
GNOME/JDS, and
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update
his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134?
I'm
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update
his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134?
I'm guessing you're talking to me? I have no idea what
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update
his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134?
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
The IPS source compiles on machines without IPS.
Is there a separate IPS source?
The IPS source is hosted in the /hg/pkg/gate repository on
src.opensolaris.org, as described on the IPS project web
On 07/24/10 04:30 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmithalan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan Coopersmithalan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update his
On 23/07/2010 03:33, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
I don't know, but probably more people contributed to
SFE and/or
/contrib in the last couple of years than to
Blastwave.
Without getting into pointless comparisons (I've used both),
the problem I have with /contrib is
the huge bottleneck
I am one of those approvers.
Last I looked I had at least commented on anything mentioned in both SJ-Discuss
and Porters-Discuss as ready for review. I will review my emails, but unless
some have come in over the last week, there are none that have not been either
approved (with or without my
Hi Peter,
GNU/kFreeBSD relates moreso to the Nexenta community (OpenSolaris kernel/Ubuntu
(Debian) userland) - which also is known as GNU/Solaris.
To help create the next community distro, I'd talk to Nexenta. Take a look at
Nexenta Core Platform 3.0 RC2 and see what can be improved from it.
If a community-friendly spinoff is going to spinoff, I hope the mailing list
for that is created before the deadline when Oracle decides to terminate the
Opensolaris community.
Is somebody working to create a community distro mailing list?
Personally, I want this mailing list back, for
Apparently I missed the memo the Oracle was dropping this site.
If it turns out I didn't miss the memo, and this is something you are
completely making up, please stop. This is the type of stuff that gets posted
on slashdot then I have to go around the office and explain that it's just
someone
A Hettinger wrote:
Apparently I missed the memo the Oracle was dropping this site.
If it turns out I didn't miss the memo, and this is something you are
completely making up, please stop.
Oracle has made no announcements of ending opensolaris.org.
Oracle has announced that the separate
On 07/22/10 04:24, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Update 10 ? Really ?
The marketing people at ORacle are worse than the ones at Sun. We have no clue
when an update is coming or a damn thing but at least there are readme files
that leak out from time to time.
I don't understand your point. Hasn't it
On 07/22/10 05:56 PM, Jason wrote:
At a previous job most of their Sparc systems were upgraded from
Solaris 2.6-8-10 via live upgrade. Obviously new systems got the
latest standard, and not every system that went from 2.6-8 was still
around to do the 8-10 upgrade, but at one point we had around
On 07/22/10 14:56, Jason wrote:
I suspect they would be quite disappointed (to put it mildly) if there
is no way to do something similar (at least an installer that can run
in an older version to lay down the bits in unused space).
The following worked for me to migrate development build
There was, however, threat of moderating, and/or discontinuing the list as
disciplinary measures as part of select interpretation and application of the
site's TOS. To which someone on list did respond by setting up a list at Free
Lists so as to as least have an archive. Mayhaps that was what
A reminder that we *do* have a distribution community here, with a
distribution-discuss alias that is a good place to hold community
distro conversations...
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/distribution-discuss
-John
___
Thanks, John. I'd been checking in on that from time to time but it didn't
seem like much discussion was going on following the mentioning of such at
governing board meeting a while back. You're indeed correct that that would be
a good place for such discussion. I assumed, perhaps
If a community-friendly spinoff is going to spinoff, I hope the mailing list
for that is created before the deadline when Oracle decides to terminate the
Opensolaris community.
Is somebody working to create a community distro mailing list?
Personally, I want this mailing list back, for people
On 07/24/10 03:48 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On 07/22/10 14:56, Jason wrote:
I suspect they would be quite disappointed (to put it mildly) if there
is no way to do something similar (at least an installer that can run
in an older version to lay down the bits in unused space).
The following
On 07/23/10 14:23, Ian Collins wrote:
I guess that's with an older or same ZFS version not newer in order to
be able to zfs send the filesystem. It could work for recent Solaris 10
updates as well, assuming there's another update with a zfs upgrade.
When I did this I migrated systems from
On 07/24/10 09:47 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On 07/23/10 14:23, Ian Collins wrote:
I guess that's with an older or same ZFS version not newer in order to
be able to zfs send the filesystem. It could work for recent Solaris 10
updates as well, assuming there's another update with a zfs upgrade.
On 07/23/10 15:28, Ian Collins wrote:
That's right, but I don't think you can specify the zfs or zpool version
to the installer (an RFE maybe?) so the root pool will always be the
latest version.
you should be able to create an empty BE in a down-rev pool (with pkg
image-create, as discussed
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Stefan Parvu stefanparv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting. Do you have any comparative numbers between
OSOL and others: RHAT, Ubuntu for instance ?
I had the impression SMF did improve things. As I read your post
it seems, sometimes in past but not anymore ...
On 21/07/2010 23:25, Ian Collins wrote:
On 07/22/10 02:43 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not sure about where you live but in the real world, there is
NO IPS
in Solaris. IPS was introduced in Indiana (why not in Solaris) and
Indiana
is a nice proof
On 21/07/2010 17:51, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Hey ... let me get this real clear.
Because I am tired of the games.
Jörg is always here .. night and day working away and he stays in nearly
constant contact with other people ( like me ) that will work as a team
for a real
Could a new community distro come out of a Bsd / Debian hybrid kernel?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Peter Jones bloosk...@netscape.net wrote:
Could a new community distro come out of a Bsd / Debian hybrid kernel?
There is nothing like a Debian kernel and this is OpenSolaris.
OpenSolaris is a kernel with userland. *BSD is a different project.
Jörg
--
Peter Jones wrote:
Could a new community distro come out of a Bsd / Debian hybrid kernel?
That would be the existing GNU/kFreeBSD project, nothing to do with OpenSolaris.
You can go make all sorts of distros out of non-OpenSolaris components, but
those are off-topic here.
--
-Alan
On 07/21/10 15:25, Ian Collins wrote:
tches.
If Solaris Next is to be IPS based, I really really hope we will see a
viable upgrade path. The lack of one is the biggest hurdle to IPS adoption.
In general, upgrading from UFS root w/ svr4 packages to ZFS root w/ IPS
is a very difficult
- Original Message -
From: Ken Gunderson kgund...@teamcool.net
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro, teamwork and being clear
To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
+1 from me as well. Sometime back I communicated same to Joerg
privately
- Original Message -
From: me bsdphrea...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 2:49 pm
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro, teamwork and being clear
To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
AH HA +1 Let me know if I can help anywhere on the project. I have
contacted one
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Of course those links are internal addresses inside the Oracle pits and not
avail to the community. This is primarily because there is no open source
concept inside there and these people don't even think in terms of
community and docs and information is not going to be
On 07/22/10 04:35 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
See :
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/sgs/packages/common/SUNWonld-README
Note that there is specific references to Solaris 8 and Solaris 10 update 10
and Nevada and even Solaris Nevada (OpenSolaris 2009.06,
Paul Gress wrote:
Near the bottom there is just a heading Solaris Nevada. If I look at
some of the bug id's, they have the latest ones, not used in earlier
revisions. Maybe Solaris Nevada means latest or there's an official
release planned called just Solaris Nevada.
Solaris Nevada is the
On 07/22/10 14:19, Paul Gress wrote:
On 07/22/10 04:35 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
See :
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/sgs/packages/common/SUNWonld-README
Note that there is specific references to Solaris 8 and Solaris 10
update 10 and Nevada and even Solaris
On 07/23/10 06:44 AM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
On 07/21/10 15:25, Ian Collins wrote:
If Solaris Next is to be IPS based, I really really hope we will see a
viable upgrade path. The lack of one is the biggest hurdle to IPS
adoption.
In general, upgrading from UFS root w/ svr4 packages to ZFS
On 07/22/10 07:52 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 21/07/2010 23:25, Ian Collins wrote:
If Solaris Next is to be IPS based, I really really hope we will see
a viable upgrade path. The lack of one is the biggest hurdle to IPS
adoption.
Would a Solaris 10 branded zone do?
As a back stop,
At a previous job most of their Sparc systems were upgraded from
Solaris 2.6-8-10 via live upgrade. Obviously new systems got the
latest standard, and not every system that went from 2.6-8 was still
around to do the 8-10 upgrade, but at one point we had around 1200
sparc systems (all servers, no
I'm certainly not opposed to open, but the main thing it means to me
is source access (more to look, troubleshoot, and understand, and
maybe never to build), and also a counterweight to the scheme of the day.
In almost every other capacity, the openness of a distro doesn't do a thing
for me one
I don't know, but probably more people contributed to
SFE and/or
/contrib in the last couple of years than to
Blastwave.
Without getting into pointless comparisons (I've used both),
the problem I have with /contrib is
the huge bottleneck that appears to be present getting
stuff from /pending
Interesting. Do you have any comparative numbers between
OSOL and others: RHAT, Ubuntu for instance ?
I had the impression SMF did improve things. As I read your post
it seems, sometimes in past but not anymore ... why is that ?
Probable somebody should fill in some bugs regarding this ?
On 20/07/2010 21:42, Joerg Schilling wrote:
John Plocherjohn.ploc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Bart Smaaldersbart.smaald...@oracle.com wrote:
.
Joerg (et.al.)
This all
Stefan Parvu stefanparv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting. Do you have any comparative numbers between
OSOL and others: RHAT, Ubuntu for instance ?
I had the impression SMF did improve things. As I read your post
it seems, sometimes in past but not anymore ... why is that ?
Probable
On 20/07/2010 20:56, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Robert Milkowskimi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
I must admit that I actually like IPS. Of course it is work-in-progress
but for most of the part it already works better than the old packaging
tools.
IPS is not yet inside OpenSolaris and I am
right. Good point is to keep all these things logged somewhere and we could
track them down
in time.
Btw: if community thinks for a itself distro, which I salute more than
anything, we could think first to have a defect management system where we
could freely
log these sort of defects and a
Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
Of course IPS is included in the OSOL distribution for a long time now.
One might argue that the OSOL is a community distribution as apart from
Sun many community members contributed to it in one way or another.
Sure, most of the work has been done
Stefan Parvu stefanparv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Interesting. Do you have any comparative numbers
between
OSOL and others: RHAT, Ubuntu for instance ?
I had the impression SMF did improve things. As I
read your post
it seems, sometimes in past but not anymore ... why
is that ?
Stefan Parvu stefanparv...@yahoo.com wrote:
right. Good point is to keep all these things logged somewhere and we could
track them down
in time.
Do you believe you need bugzilla or would the bugtracker at Berlios be
sufficient?
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home)
On 21/07/2010 11:01, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Robert Milkowskimi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
Of course IPS is included in the OSOL distribution for a long time now.
One might argue that the OSOL is a community distribution as apart from
Sun many community members contributed to it in one way or
--- On Wed, 7/21/10, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
wrote:
- There is no Xorg package from
Blastwave, is there such a beast
from other sources besides Indiana?
Hmm, that is incorrect. BW had successful Xorg packaging since Xorg 6.4
(I thank Sun's X team for
Stefan Parvu stefanparv...@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you believe you need bugzilla or would the bugtracker at Berlios be
sufficient?
any defect managemetn system would be enough. Probable easier would
be to have bugzilla since we might need to have a compatibility with vendor
which uses
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not sure about where you live but in the real world, there is NO IPS
in Solaris. IPS was introduced in Indiana (why not in Solaris) and Indiana
is a nice proof of concept on how to slow down things by working against the
community.
In the world
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Why use the latest source tree if this causes lots of problems?
Why cause lots of problems by refusing to work with the other community
members
and refusing to use the latest available code?
Do you really believe I did not try newer
With a community distro would it be possible to capture drivers that are being
dropped by Oracle from future editions of OpenSolaris? If these drivers can be
captured to maintain the existing hardware support, then going forward if the
community edition is fully GPL compliant then porting GPL
Berlios.de is a service that exists already and after we moved to berlios.eu
we will have plenty of space.
sounds good. nginx I was thinking since is small, compact and does not
require pre-forking ala Apache. wise consumption is always better.
Here you have some details:
Do you believe you need bugzilla or would the bugtracker at Berlios be
sufficient?
any defect managemetn system would be enough. Probable easier would
be to have bugzilla since we might need to have a compatibility with vendor
which uses bugzilla. We need to think a bit. As well:
fully gpl compliant? what do you mean?
If the driver being dropped is open source, you can always take the
source code and keep updating it outside ON. Several people already do
this
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:21 PM, russell str...@willows7.myzen.co.uk wrote:
With a community distro would it be
On 21/07/2010 16:28, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
fully gpl compliant? what do you mean?
If the driver being dropped is open source, you can always take the
source code and keep updating it outside ON. Several people already do
this
I would recommend in such a case to package it in IPS
russell wrote:
With a community distro would it be possible to capture drivers that are
being dropped by Oracle from future editions of OpenSolaris?
For the ones that are either open source or redistributable, I don't see
why not.
If these drivers can be captured to maintain the existing
russell str...@willows7.myzen.co.uk wrote:
With a community distro would it be possible to capture drivers that are
being dropped by Oracle from future editions of OpenSolaris? If these
drivers can be captured to maintain the existing hardware support, then going
forward if the community
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Why use the latest source tree if this causes lots of problems?
Why cause lots of problems by refusing to work with the other community
members and refusing to use the latest available code?
Do you really believe I did not try newer
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
The community edition can only be fully GPL compliant if the community
rewrites the kernel, at which point it's really a new OS, not a community
distro. The community can't change the license terms for the code Oracle
owns/releases from
Alan Coopersmith alan dot coopersmith at oracle dot com wrote:
The community edition can only be fully GPL compliant if the community
rewrites the kernel, at which point it's really a new OS, not a community
distro. The community can't change the license terms for the code Oracle
Peter Jones wrote:
Alan Coopersmith alan dot coopersmith at oracle dot com wrote:
The community edition can only be fully GPL compliant if the community
rewrites the kernel, at which point it's really a new OS, not a community
distro. The community can't change the license terms for the code
AH HA +1 Let me know if I can help anywhere on the project. I have contacted
one person already that has blown the community rally bugle.
Actually I kinda liked the GUI from SXCE, I can find a replacement graphic for
the menu button :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
+1 from me as well. Sometime back I communicated same to Joerg privately. I
don't code but am fairly seasoned sysadmin so there's bound to be some
thankless but necessary dirty work along those lines that needs doing. If so,
feel free to give me a holler.
P.S.; Dennis, it would also be
Why not apply for a free open source project license for Jira?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 07/22/10 02:43 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not sure about where you live but in the real world, there is NO IPS
in Solaris. IPS was introduced in Indiana (why not in Solaris) and Indiana
is a nice proof of concept on how to slow down things
Bart Smaalders bart.smaald...@oracle.com wrote:
You don't seem to know that SchilliX has no problems to resolve dependencies
using tsort since several years.
tsort works for linker dependencies since 30 years the only difference is
that
the output has to be reversed for packages.
On 20/07/2010 09:59, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bart Smaaldersbart.smaald...@oracle.com wrote:
You don't seem to know that SchilliX has no problems to resolve dependencies
using tsort since several years.
tsort works for linker dependencies since 30 years the only difference is that
the
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Bart Smaalders bart.smaald...@oracle.com wrote:
.
Joerg (et.al.)
This all sounds like crying over spilt milk, as they say. Your
arguments seem to be of the form THEY didn't need to move away from
Joerg (et.al.)
This all sounds like crying over spilt milk, as they say. Your
arguments seem to be of the form THEY didn't need to move away from
SVr4 packages; instead THEY could have... rather than here's what
SVr4 packages do that IPS doesn't. That is, your gripe seems to be
that you
Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
I must admit that I actually like IPS. Of course it is work-in-progress
but for most of the part it already works better than the old packaging
tools.
IPS is not yet inside OpenSolaris and I am talking about distros from the
community here. I see
John Plocher john.ploc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Bart Smaalders bart.smaald...@oracle.com wrote:
.
Joerg (et.al.)
This all sounds like crying over spilt milk, as they say. Your
arguments seem to
On 07/21/10 08:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
SMF was a good idea in 2004 and it did speed up things a lot. Today,
Solaris with SMF is slow compared to Linux. Do we need to throw away SMF?
I believe no, we rather need to work on the existing software to make it readiy
for the future.
In
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not interested to change things just in order to change things. One
of the reasons for UNIX to be successful is that things have been defined
simple and that old programs are enhanced without breaking them. Doing this
was one of the major
I've heard some rumblings (I haven't investigated this myself, so
consider it hearsay), that the booting time is still longer on Solaris
than Linux. If I had to guess, it might be tied to either overly
restrictive dependencies, or simply too many for the current
implementation to handle quickly
Forgotten, or repressed? :)
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not interested to change things just in order to change things. One
of the reasons for UNIX to be successful is that things have been
On 07/21/10 10:00 AM, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 07/21/10 08:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
SMF was a good idea in 2004 and it did speed up things a lot. Today,
Solaris with SMF is slow compared to Linux. Do we need to throw
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not interested to change things just in order to change things. One
of the reasons for UNIX to be successful is that things have been defined
simple and that old programs are enhanced
Jason ja...@ansipunx.net wrote:
I've heard some rumblings (I haven't investigated this myself, so
consider it hearsay), that the booting time is still longer on Solaris
than Linux. If I had to guess, it might be tied to either overly
It is again slower than on Linux. In September 2004, SMF
On 07/21/10 10:38 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jasonja...@ansipunx.net wrote:
I've heard some rumblings (I haven't investigated this myself, so
consider it hearsay), that the booting time is still longer on Solaris
than Linux. If I had to guess, it might be tied to either overly
It
Shawn Walker shawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote:
The big problem with IPS is that there is no migration strategy, so it may
be
better to not migrate.
That depends on what you define as migration and what your specific
needs are.
If you did ever migrate software from one technology to
W. Wayne Liauh w...@hawaiilinux.org wrote:
One of the biggest problems with all of our community distros is that they
are not compatible with IPS. This problem is further complicated by the fact
that Sun's own OpenSolaris distro does not allow multiple boot with other
Solaris-based OS.
I
W. Wayne Liauh w...@hawaiilinux.org wrote:
One of the most distinguishing advantages of IPS which is also one of the
best selling points of OpenSolaris, is that, after you do an image-update to
a newer version of OpenSolaris, your current version will be persevered as
one of the dual-boot
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
Ok, fine. But what do the internal developers use to build on?
Until Indiana was self-hosting, they built on SXCE.
AFAIK, once Indiana was self-hosting, they built on it.
Some (no doubt not all) would like to stay in sync with what they're
Richard L. Hamilton rlha...@smart.net wrote:
A packaging system is a packaging system. IPS is nobody's favorite,
but that's better than arguing the merits of rpm vs deb vs BSD ports vs ...
The SVr4 packaging system understands http based URIs for the packages since
2006.
It does support the
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am currently bit enervated as I installed the SS-12.1 tarbarll
as noted on the website but I still get compiler errors from
compiling b130 on SXCE b130.
Studio 12u1 should give you build errors on that build. The sources
weren't fixed to build
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am currently bit enervated as I installed the SS-12.1 tarbarll
as noted on the website but I still get compiler errors from
compiling b130 on SXCE b130.
Studio 12u1 should give you build
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
This was a result of broken PATH definitions that caused lint to be searched
in /opt/sunstudio12.1/sunstudio12.1/bin/lint which is really strange.
I am going to give b130 a try with SS-12 if hacking
./usr/src/cmd/parted/parted.c
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
