Joerg,
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> > > I did send two attempts to request-sponsor and did never get any
> > > reply. What do you expect me to do? Do you expect me to repeat my
> > > mail once a week? I am adult and I am not interest
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > I did send two attempts to request-sponsor and did never get any
> > reply. What do you expect me to do? Do you expect me to repeat my
> > mail once a week? I am adult and I am not interested in playing
> > games. Sun did verify that the "official method" does not work
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> > > > > I am still waiting for a reply..
> > > >
> > > > Ah, I see. We're back to star again (as I suspected). I'm not privvy
> > > > to what the issue with star being integrated is or was. The ca
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > > > I am still waiting for a reply..
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. We're back to star again (as I suspected). I'm not privvy
> > > to what the issue with star being integrated is or was. The case was
> > > approved. From what I understand based on what people have to
Joerg,
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> > > I tried and it does not work.
> > > I am still waiting for a reply on a request...
> >
> > What request might that be? I haven't seen anything from you on
> > request-sponsor in a very long
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > I tried and it does not work.
> > I am still waiting for a reply on a request...
>
> What request might that be? I haven't seen anything from you on
> request-sponsor in a very long time (at least nothing that comes to my
> mind).
Well, there is e.g. a bunch of bugf
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> > > The way you proprose to do things does not work as it has been
> > > verified that it is close to impossible to collaborate with Sun as
> > > long as proposals for intergating fixes are just ignored.
> >
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > The way you proprose to do things does not work as it has been
> > verified that it is close to impossible to collaborate with Sun as
> > long as proposals for intergating fixes are just ignored.
>
> You're joking right? I see requests for sponsorship come in and get
I
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
> > done. (And since you didn't provide a list of the bug reports you're
> > referring
> > to, we can't even discuss when those might be fixed.)I look forward to
> > seeing your mail to request-spons
Uros Nedic wrote:
Thanks for answering. But you answered only on one part of
my question.
Second part is what will happen with closed binaries? Will
they be opened, exchanged with community developed open
source equivalents or something else?
It is likely that most of the closed binaries are c
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> done. (And since you didn't provide a list of the bug reports you're
> referring
> to, we can't even discuss when those might be fixed.)I look forward to
> seeing your mail to request-sponsor with your contributions of fixes for these
> bugs. Personally, my cont
Aug 2009 10:53:15 -0700
> From: glenn.laga...@sun.com
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] ON/SXCE bi-weekly schedule not valid anymore?
> To: ur...@live.com
> CC: on-disc...@opensolaris.org; opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>
> * Uros Nedic (ur...@live.com) wrote:
>>
>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>>>
Yes, at some point. Right now today however that's not the case, at
least we don't know if it's the case. But, since SXCE is going away all
consolidations will have to build
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, at some point. Right now today however that's not the case, at
> >> least we don't know if it's the case. But, since SXCE is going away all
> >> consolidations will have to build on OpenSolaris. It's just
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
>> Yes, at some point. Right now today however that's not the case, at
>> least we don't know if it's the case. But, since SXCE is going away all
>> consolidations will have to build on OpenSolaris. It's just a matter of
>> consolidations testing
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> Yes, at some point. Right now today however that's not the case, at
> least we don't know if it's the case. But, since SXCE is going away all
> consolidations will have to build on OpenSolaris. It's just a matter of
> consolidations testing their builds and filing bugs f
egarding
> building all consolidations and assembling this into
> OpenSolaris build. Will it be possible?
>
> Uros
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:59:50 -0700
>> From: glenn.laga...@sun.com
>> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] ON/SXCE
* Uros Nedic (ur...@live.com) wrote:
>
> I know for ON consolidation. My question is regarding
> building all consolidations and assembling this into
> OpenSolaris build. Will it be possible?
Yes, at some point. Right now today however that's not the case, at
least we don't know if it's the case
scuss] ON/SXCE bi-weekly schedule not valid anymore?
> To: ur...@live.com
> CC: jonathan.edwa...@sun.com; alan.coopersm...@sun.com;
> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org; on-disc...@opensolaris.org
>
> * Uros Nedic (ur...@live.com) wrote:
>>
>> I would like to ask
* Uros Nedic (ur...@live.com) wrote:
>
> I would like to ask if bi-weekly OpenSolaris builds will contain
> all tools (including closed binaries) necessary to do 'home made'
> OpenSolaris build from the source code?
You can already build OS/NET on OpenSolaris today. You need to add the
extra rep
On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
i understand that the SXCE binary downloads are going away .. (just
wondering if I need to transition to a private build system until
some
of the IPS smoke clears)
No, you need to transition to working with IPS. There are internal
pre
nsolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] ON/SXCE bi-weekly schedule not valid anymore?
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Erast wrote:
>>> Guys, could someone confirm that this schedule is STILL valid?
>>>
&g
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Erast wrote:
>>> Guys, could someone confirm that this schedule is STILL valid?
>>>
>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering that because of SXCE drop - what will happe
On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Erast wrote:
Guys, could someone confirm that this schedule is STILL valid?
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/
I'm just wondering that because of SXCE drop - what will happen with
bi-weekly schedule and releases?
The on
Erast wrote:
> Guys, could someone confirm that this schedule is STILL valid?
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/
>
> I'm just wondering that because of SXCE drop - what will happen with
> bi-weekly schedule and releases?
The only thing that changes is the line "The SXCE b
Guys, could someone confirm that this schedule is STILL valid?
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/
I'm just wondering that because of SXCE drop - what will happen with
bi-weekly schedule and releases?
How community will know about stabilization builds, etc?
__
26 matches
Mail list logo
