Dennis Clarke wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Yeah. But I am NOT alone with the feeling that something is going
wrong. Why does this project need more than half a year to get some
sources moved into the Solaris tree? This is a task which should be
finished within weeks and NOT years.
It's much more
On 8/6/06, Roland Mainz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My answer is: It depends on the requirements on the user side. Both
sides of the spectrum have valid arguments. However the backwards
compatibility of ksh93 is very good as outlined by Roland Mainz. I
think we should switch NOW or allow the users to switch
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do you like to make Solaris PPC incompatible to Solaris
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do
On 7/31/06, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
+1
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
Do
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?
There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.
I'm sure they don't want to ship on Xorg on SPARC which only supports
older framebuffers poorly so a lot more work is involved.
Are
Original-Message
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:45:31 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your
(ks93 discuss removed)
But why is SUNW so uninterested???
Where is your vision of ^^We strongly believe in One Solaris^^ now?
There is a lot of history there and it is hard to change.
Migrating from Xsun to Xorg did work on x86.
What lot of history do you mean exactly?
(okay, /dev/fb is
Martin Bochnig writes:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
If by afraid you mean know that we'll be doing something illegal,
then perhaps that's a partly reasonable interpretation.
I think you're at least underestimating the amount
It's not just blind fear, though, nor is it malice. Looking at the
staggering amount of code we've been able to release so far, I'm a bit
baffled how anyone could even begin to think that we're holding back
out of spite.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Bochnig writes:
I would just love being explicitly allowed to integrate and
redistribute a few closed things
Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
filing bugs against each requesting an open version?
That might be a more productive approach than
Original-Message
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:17 -0700
From: Jan Setje-Eilers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Bochnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2
Since you have a fairly specific hit-list of items you need, how about
filing bugs against each requesting an open version?
That might be a more productive approach than complaining here.
--
James Carlson
Strange, but okay.
Be sure that I will do that asap (not now).
--
Martin
Except NICs you mean?
Including NICs.
Doesn't Grub (at least Grub1) use the etherboot/rom-o-matic NIC drivers?
Not for Solaris as Sun ships it.
The grub that comes with Solaris is loaded in memory using PXE (over the
wire) and then the Grub PXE driver continues to use PXE to bootstrap the
Ah, that is what I asked you a few lines above.
Yeah.
Or loaded via Grub1 floppy, where no PXE is present.
And then interfacing with the NIC directly.
Damn, I had been hoping from outside (never worked through the grub
sources) this would be handled
similarily with a certain set of USB
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Having a redistributable DLJ-distros-jdk available, which necessarily depends
on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is another such problem.
It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them on the
fly first
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:
Is it also a matter of resources that you don't allow (even
non-commercial) distributors to redistribute a closed binary for
/dev/fb for the older framebuffers developed by SUNW themselves
(probably no 3rd party NDA's affected)?
And what is with the
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Having a redistributable DLJ-distros-jdk available, which necessarily
depends on (apparently) non-redistributable SUNWspro-shared C++ libs, is
another such problem.
It's really annoying that I have to force LiveDVD-users to download them
on the fly first
Dunno about the frame buffers, but perhaps libC contains 3rd party IP,
and Sun's license to use it prohibits redistribution by other parties?
I believe that's one of the reasons why you and I are not allowed to
redistribute the Solaris ISOs we can download for free from Sun's web
site: Sun
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Martin Bochnig wrote:
okay.
If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing,
I _would_ understand it.
Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
help?
What I
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal
: Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
I don't want to get involved in political arguments so I will
state my view one once.
It looks as if Casper Dik and Martin Schaffstall
Would a statement by a Sun employee (provided, of course, thet such
a license doesn't prohibit Sun from doing so) clarifying the situation
help?
Yes.
What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK
(on which SUNW has made so much noise about, back in May'06) has
okay.
If (and only if) 3rd parties are involved into the libC* thing, I _would_
understand it.
What I still would not understand - however - is, why the Distros-JDK (on
which SUNW has made so m
uch noise about, back in May'06) has not been built with the open gcc.
A gcc-built JDK would not
@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal
Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal
Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
I
Hello Stefan,
Thursday, July 27, 2006, 9:42:45 PM, you wrote:
ST [ offlist ]
ST On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle.
'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open
sourced doesn't help
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
In that area Solaris saves a lot of time comparing to Linux.
And therefore, presumably, saves money too.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
(+1 for PowerPC)
Casper
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
I think there is a PowerPC discuss
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be
great!
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of
the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed, the
PowerPC team
may not have a choice but to install ksh93 as /bin/ksh
bingo [1]
--
Dennis Clarke
On 7/27/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that
The issue of backwards compatibility is already addressed very well in
ksh93 itself. Most of the opensolaris distributions - excluding
Solaris itself - are shipping ksh93 as /bin/ksh or are going to ship
it. The ksh integration tree contains a master built switch
specifically for that purpose:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do you?
--
// Martin Schaffstall
//
On 7/27/06, Raquel Velasco and Bill Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
great!
Lets hope we won't see an open sourced version of the old /bin/ksh
--
// Martin Schaffstall
//EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ //
\X/
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
No, that's not true at all. I
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
No, that's not true at all.
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open hostilities from Sun personnel and the permanent
delays :(
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in replacing ksh88 with ksh93, a feeling which is
based on the open
Martin Schaffstall wrote On 07/27/06 06:48,:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open
Martin Schaffstall wrote:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] Well, considering that /bin/ksh is for some reason not part of the
Unix license we once bought and therefor in usr/closed
You're not going to file a bug to get the old /bin/ksh open sourced, do
you?
It's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I suggest not.
What other
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
If you want PowerPC Solaris and SPARC/x86 Solaris be that different,
then yes; if you want scripts to be compatible I
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schaffstall writes:
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Somehow I have the feeling that Sun doesn't want to see the
project succeed in
(Apologies, please ignore disregard the blank email I just sent
Evolution threw a bit of a wobbler!)
--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group
http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771
Any
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I am certain that the ksh93 implementation is being addressed in a
manner consistent with solid engineering principles. The issue of
backwards compatibility is critical to the success of Solaris and, in
my less than humble opinion, critical to the
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL:
On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free to do what want,
of
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
[1] I'm working on my verbosity. How am I doing? :-)
Great--until you blew it with an overly verbose footnote! :-)
:-P
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Stefan Teleman wrote:
How is gratuitous incompatibility defined in this particular case ?
The possibility that someone who will try the PowerPC Solaris port in
the future might be unhappy because this future port will default to
ksh93 instead of /bin/ksh, creating the
Solaris 10 SPARC is currently incompatible with Solaris x86/x64: Xsun
on SPARC vs. Xorg on x86/x64. I haven't heard of too many complaints
because of this compatibility breakage (source code written, compiled
and linked on Solaris 10 Xorg x86/x64 will not compile and link on
Solaris 10 Xsun SPARC
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean with source code written, compiled and
linked ... Xorg).
The X client runtime is exactly the same on both; the server is
different but by and large implements the same feature set
(with the exception of DPS on
Stefan Teleman writes:
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Martin Schaffstall wrote:
I suggest to make /bin/ksh ksh93 from the beginning
that you don't
have to deal with any backwards compatibility fuzz
later
I advocate against that; individual distros are free
to do what want,
of course, but making gratuitous incompatible changes
Stefan Teleman wrote:
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
none of these extensions are available on Xsun SPARC. source code
which makes use of any of these extensions, which compiles, links and
runs on Xorg x86/x64 does not compile or link (never mind run) on
i am specifically referring to:
Xrender
XVideo
XvMC
XRandR
Xcomposite
Certainly the compilation environment should support all; Xrandr
seems to be present on SPARC (certainly the library and client
are).
All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.
none of these
On 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of them should compile and run (against Xorg servers) on SPARC.
There is nothing i would love more than to be able to run Xorg with
all these extensions working on SPARC and my XVR-1000 card, so i can
watch DVD's at more than
[ offlist ]
On 7/27/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mmmm. Perhaps I was overly assertive, although I stick to the principle.
'Course, the ensuing discussion about ksh88 not being able to be open
sourced doesn't help the debate.
you weren't being overly assertive.
this backwards
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather than
practical
Stefan Teleman writes:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility, grounded in purely philosophical rather
On 7/27/06, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The good news, I think, is that Linux is still readily available for
those who aren't so interested in compatibility. Nobody else really
needs to ape that model.
and Linux is also being readily deployed. 12,000+ workstations at ODF
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 21:16]:
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.
Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or
want to trademark this use of Polaris?
+-- Stefan Teleman wrote:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point.
Agreed, but I don't think that this case is really that simplistic.
One currently expects that the scripts one writes today will run unchanged
between OpenSolaris/SPARC and
Original-Message
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:13:15 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Korn Shell 93 integration/migration project discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal :
Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
On 7/27
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your (mostly
eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
Martin Bochnig wrote:
Are you afraid of publically being expected to opensource all your
(mostly eol'ed) gfx drivers?
Or is it that you yourself don't believe in sparc anymore.
Sun believes in SPARC servers such as the Sun Fire T1000/T2000, but
there isn't as much work going on in SPARC
Martin Bochnig wrote:
It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb driver for those older chipsets.
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still hadn't
Martin Bochnig wrote:
It would be really nice if I could redistribute the closed /dev/fb
driver for those older chipsets.
Even just in binary form would absolutely be enough.
I asked the SPARC team to allow binary redistribution of their
drivers a year ago, and last I heard they still
p.s.: Is SUNW interested in GRUB2 on sparc? We finally could boot from
USB mass storage then.
The idea that GRUB or GRUB2 has anything to do with what devices a
system can or can not boot from is mostly a miss-conception.
A number of amd64/legacy-x86 systems have BIOSs that can talk to and
Jan,
thanks for your detailed answer!
I should have (finally) read all the ieee1275 datasheets before starting to
publically talk about that, and unintentionally spreading untruths.
Thanks for the correction, overview and outlook.
I should have known it better a bit: I once experimented with
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:11 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this backwards compatibility for backwards compatibility's sake is no
longer a selling point. Linux has proven that backwards compatibility
for its own sake is largely irrelevant (my personal unhappiness about
this incompatibility,
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
--
Formal Proposal : Port
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained
to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single
CPU implementation. Members
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
+1
On 7/26/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
+1.0
Original-Message
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
Subject: [osol-discuss] Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal
So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?
Thanks,
Karyn
Dennis Clarke wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I propose that a project be formed to port OpenSolaris to the PowerPC
and POWER Architecture. The initial port should be tightly constrained
to a specific hardware reference platform and based on a 32-bit single
CPU implementation.
So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?
The discussion list already exists at the opensolaris.org site. It was
moved from the blastwave list server quite some time ago. I can't recall
why.
The subversion
So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?
Here is the task map :
http://polaris.blastwave.org/wiki/PolarisTaskMap
Dennis
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
From: Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Formal Proposal : Port OpenSolaris to PowerPC
Date: Wed, July 26, 2006 14:01
To: opensolaris-discuss@OpenSolaris.org
So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?
If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org?
Thanks,
Karyn
Dennis Clarke wrote:
So, I assume that the code and discussions would be moved to
opensolaris.org once the project is approved and open on the site?
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Karyn Ritter wrote:
So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?
Sure. Why not?
If so, what (if anything) will be in the project on opensolaris.org?
Primarily a pointer to where the work is being done. And a single focal
point for anyone to go to who is
So development would continue to happen on Blastwave?
Yes. There is a project well in place and already happening.
Also, Genesi has stepped up to the plate and provided _everything_ that
the community would ever need to ensure that we have good success. In that
regard it makes total
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.
Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or
want to trademark this use of Polaris? (If so, it's not useful as a
project name for
* Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-26 11:19]:
The community has accepted the name Polaris as the distro name.
Cool. But I need to ask a question: is someone likely to need or
want to trademark this use of Polaris? (If so, it's not useful as a
project name for
92 matches
Mail list logo
