> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Here is the list of closed binaries for Sparc and i386/x86/AMD :
>>
>> http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/i386-closed.list
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/sparc-closed.list
>>
>> So which ones are show stoppers ?
>
> I'd
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, see e.g. the discussion related to the broken Sun tar ACL format.
> >
>
> Slightly off-topic but you reminded me that we need an update to star at
> Blastwave that will not signal a "sparse" notice for every file that one
> copies or tars f
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Here is the list of closed binaries for Sparc and i386/x86/AMD :
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/i386-closed.list
and
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/OpenSolaris/sparc-closed.list
So which ones are show stoppers ?
I'd like to point out that all
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >Well, to be serious I did seee also code coming into OpenSolaris that
>> would not
>> >pass my audits...
>>
>> Considering that any band of engineers produces bugs in a proportion to
>> the
>> amount changed, that should be no surprise.
>>
>> Did you file bugs for
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
>> >> included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
>> >> Blastwave.
>> >
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Well, to be serious I did seee also code coming into OpenSolaris that would
> >not
> >pass my audits...
>
> Considering that any band of engineers produces bugs in a proportion to the
> amount changed, that should be no surprise.
>
> Did you file bugs for those instan
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
Blastwave
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
> >> included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
> >> Blastwave.
> >
> > This is
>Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As opposed to the millions of software developers that are writing the
>> millions of unaudited code that forms the base of your packages.
>> Sometimes 'good faith' is as much as you can hope for.
>
>Well, to be serious I did seee also code coming into
Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As opposed to the millions of software developers that are writing the
> millions of unaudited code that forms the base of your packages.
> Sometimes 'good faith' is as much as you can hope for.
Well, to be serious I did seee also code coming into OpenSol
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
Blastwave.
This is something that currently does not fit the ON OSS model from Sun.
Unless
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I myself would prefer open source software based on libraries already
> included in Solaris (like OpenSSL) - something I can't get with
> Blastwave.
This is something that currently does not fit the ON OSS model from Sun.
Unless we find a way that Su
Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, blastwave packages are set up to be binary distributions, not
> developer distributions.
> If you want to compile other stuff against our packages, you are encouraged
> to become a maintainer and add to the collection, using our nice clean
> bui
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have pointed out, the root of the problem is that your current
> setup requires you to put your full trust in the maintainers of each package
> with no way to verify that they've not inserted a trojan horse into the build.
> That's the discus
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 06:24, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The Solaris development process more or less rejects the notion of
> > trusted developers.
>
> ...
>
> > We emphasize control over *what* goes in, not *who* makes the change.
>
> How do you
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Solaris development process more or less rejects the notion of
> trusted developers.
...
> We emphasize control over *what* goes in, not *who* makes the change.
How do you like to do this without trusted and skilled people?
Jörg
--
EMail:
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 4) No duplication/replacement of libraries already
> >>present in the target Solaris release.
>
> Also super tough given the multiple versions of Solaris to be
> supported. It may simply be a case where there will be multiple
> trees of softw
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 06:19 am, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Some people are s stuck in thinking "it still works and so we are not
> > going to fix it" attitude. When I see yet another E4000 ( not E4500 )
> > running Oracle for 70 people I just want t
Philip Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:53:44AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
PB> [really, it should give the patches to openssl.org. but barring that,
PB> it would be nice to see a patch set just posted somewhere, like
PB> opensolaris.org]
http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/
On Thursday 20 April 2006 06:19 am, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Some people are s stuck in thinking "it still works and so we are not
> going to fix it" attitude. When I see yet another E4000 ( not E4500 )
> running Oracle for 70 people I just want to scream. Really. Running
> Solaris 8 of course
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> CR> It's not so pretty from the user side either, though I suppose that's more
> CR> a matter of taste. There are things about Solaris I prefer over Linux, but
> CR> the package / patch duality versus the everything-is-a-package approach of
> CR> Debi
Hello Chris,
Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 11:28:14 PM, you wrote:
CR> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Dave Miner wrote:
>> Not being a Debian user, I won't try to compare. I guess your
>> experience with Solaris patches is more from the user end, whereas I'm
>> looking at it from the creator/maintainer en
One of the topics we should review is the SFW
releases.
The simple thing behind this is to review the current
sources within the current SFW_b38 versus the latest
stable releases available on the Net.
This is one of the issues that causes other package
maintainers to use their own libs. This wil
Hello Philip,
Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 11:44:11 PM, you wrote:
PB> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:53:44AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> PB> [really, it should give the patches to openssl.org. but barring that,
>> PB> it would be nice to see a patch set just posted somewhere, like
>> PB> openso
>> there. I think this is why Lockheed Martin uses the software. They are
>> stuck with some old gear doing really specific tasks. So .. they use the
>> sun4m stuff.
>
> That may be true today, but these folks are going to find out about the new
> planes that run on AMD64 jet fuel. Even the go
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:06 am, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> As you know, we strive for better than 99% quality and every package must
> go through tests and peer review. I have to get Eric's latest pine onto my
> Sparc 20 here just to test for that "vanishingly small" sun4m user base out
> there. I
On Thursday 13 April 2006 02:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, I'm someone upset at the exlusivity you appear to claim
> for blastwave; open source is about sharing, but it's also about
> being allowed to do your own thing.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I for one would just like to see f
On Thursday 13 April 2006 05:06 am, James Carlson wrote:
> /opt/csw/lib/libfoo.so.1
>
> and the other installs as
>
> /opt/sfw/lib/libfoo.so.1
>
> then one can't really satisfy the other. The user is forced straight
> into LD_LIBRARY_PATH or crle(1) hell, and that's just not right.
How can th
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 12:31 pm, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:10:31PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > Sun has staff now to handle most of what they do, but this doesn't
> > allow Sun to work with the community.
>
> btw: there's a difference between "working with the community"
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 12:25 pm, Philip Brown wrote:
> Just the opposite. We finally found someone to step up to the plate and
> do the hard work, for free. James Lee is our official stable tree
> maintainer, and we've been doing very solid 'stable' releases for about 3
> quarters now.
>
> > Th
[ ... ]
> -xregs=%frameptr
>
> would seem to be the magic.
>
> Although it does apparently slow down performance.
Has this been quantified ? I don't mean just function throughput
benchmarks, but rather like the effect it has on something like
specweb if I use HTTPS done via OpenSSL with/without
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 11:02 pm, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> I'm both a user of blastwave and another Sun engineer
> cycle-stealing on this project. From my point of view,
> what I'd like to see happen with a community software
> distribution for Solaris Nevada is:
>
> 1) large scale participation
On Thursday 13 April 2006 09:22 am, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Discussion is fine .. lets discuss how to make the Solaris Community
> project at Blastwave even better.
Ok, as long as it doesn't alienate other folks like Nexenta, Gentoo, pkgsrc,
or other.
> Should you wish to join the Solaris Comm
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Dave Miner wrote:
> Not being a Debian user, I won't try to compare. I guess your
> experience with Solaris patches is more from the user end, whereas I'm
> looking at it from the creator/maintainer end; let's just say that there
> are a lot of resources expended to make s
On Thursday 13 April 2006 08:43 am, James Carlson wrote:
> Seriously, this is near the root of one of the reasons that I
> abandoned running Debian on my home system, despite the fact that I
> otherwise liked it. The tortured mess of X needing Y.1 and Z needing
> Y.2 and me wanting both X and Z wa
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:09:26PM -0400, Dave Miner wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> > Solaris patching isnt particularly bad. [It has its faults, but its been
> > in use for over a decade now] Debian's, from what I here, is the
> > "fragile" one.
> >
>
> Not being a Debian user, I won't try to co
Philip Brown wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:57:42PM -0400, Dave Miner wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
I'm not sure Nexenta's implementation is the way to go though. It seems
to me that Phil's pkg-get -- being designed around Sun's implementation
of the SVr4 packaging standard -- seems like the
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 12:50 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:50:35PM -0400, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:44 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > Interesting.
> > >
> > > This is not a deliberate thing. Apparently, it's just a side-effect of
> > > using
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:50:35PM -0400, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:44 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> > Interesting.
> >
> > This is not a deliberate thing. Apparently, it's just a side-effect of
> > using sun compilers with the -fast option.
>
> The magic compiler opti
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:57:42PM -0400, Dave Miner wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > I'm not sure Nexenta's implementation is the way to go though. It seems
> > to me that Phil's pkg-get -- being designed around Sun's implementation
> > of the SVr4 packaging standard -- seems like the better c
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:10:31PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> Sun has staff now to handle most of what they do, but this doesn't
> allow Sun to work with the community.
btw: there's a difference between "working with the community", and
"meeting the needs of the community".
you dont have to do
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:10:31PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
>
> Blastwave essentially dropped their stable tree anyway, didn't you?
Just the opposite. We finally found someone to step up to the plate and
do the hard work, for free. James Lee is our official stable tree
maintainer, and we've been
There is the small piece of the pie in which the
community really needs the support of Sun engineers in
provide quality desktop environments and graphic
libraries comparable to competing server/desktop OSes.
Namely, KDE/GNOME support which is being done very
well by the OpenSolaris desktop communi
Hi,
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> I thought an unstable gate for tracking OpenSolaris, as well as a static gate
> built against what Sun ships could work. If folks wanted to get the latest
> and greatest bits, easy, just download the current gate.
And indeed that's wha
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 18:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Monday 17 April 2006 05:20 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:23 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > > However, what I personally would like to see is the same thing I've
> > > always invisioned from the days of yesteryear...Tha
On Monday 17 April 2006 05:20 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:23 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > However, what I personally would like to see is the same thing I've
> > always invisioned from the days of yesteryear...That we could have a full
> > distribution that rivaled any of th
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 03:27 pm, Philip Brown wrote:
> Hate to say it, but: "no", because of all the qualifiers you put in.
> If you take some out, then yes it is possible.
> possible.. but not likely.
And there-in lies the rub...it seems that all parties need to get together and
put everything
Hi,
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:44 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> > Then Blastwave's OpenSSL is compilled without frame pointers which
> > makes using DTrace harder...
>
> Interesting.
>
> This is not a deliberate thing. Apparently, it's just a side-effect of
> using sun compilers with the -fast opti
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:23:17PM -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> So, how would it be possible to build a large set of libraries that everyone
> could update and use together? Is this at all possible? Sun has basically
> proposed to work with the community, and that is happening, albeit
> slowly...
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:53:44AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> PB> [really, it should give the patches to openssl.org. but barring that,
> PB> it would be nice to see a patch set just posted somewhere, like
> PB> opensolaris.org]
>
>
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/com
What many people forget is about the historical trend
of the software development during the last five to
support the latest open source software initiatives
and challenges.
Take for example:
http://www.sun.com/software/star/gnome/
versus
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/jds/downloads/current/
This is
Hello Philip,
Monday, April 17, 2006, 7:19:44 PM, you wrote:
PB> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:35:52AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>> Saturday, April 15, 2006, 2:27:45 AM, PB writes...
>>
>> PB> Basically, blastwave packages are set up to be binary distributions, not
>> PB> developer distrib
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 07:41 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Let's consider the posibility that someone joins and claims to be a
> programmer for company XYZ Inc. In truth they work for no one. We call up
> company XYZ to confirm that they actually work there and then someone will
> say "yes, they w
Hiya,
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 15:24 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> This issue came up wy back 5 years(?) ago when I started things off.
> We initially tried to build on top of Sun shipped stuff, which at that time,
> was all living in /opt/sfw. It didnt work.
I just wonder if those are a reflec
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:23 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> However, what I personally would like to see is the same thing I've always
> invisioned from the days of yesteryear...That we could have a full
> distribution that rivaled any of the open source distributions with Solaris
> as our core, rat
On Thursday 13 April 2006 03:24 pm, Philip Brown wrote:
> *wave*.
*wave*.;-)
(I've been away on vacation for a week, and have over 2000 messages in my
inbox, but it happened that yours was at the top of the stack;-)
You forgot to mention that you a conspirator in the [EMAIL PROTECTED], err...I
>I know Solaris has a slower release cycle - but with CCD developed by
>Open Solaris community it could change - I mean CCD could be uptodate
>as Blastwave or other projects. Now it would be up to client if he/she
>wants the latest from OpenSolaris or Solaris release boundled CCD.
The big advanta
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:35:52AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> Saturday, April 15, 2006, 2:27:45 AM, PB writes...
>
> PB> Basically, blastwave packages are set up to be binary distributions, not
> PB> developer distributions.
> PB> If you want to compile other stuff against our packages, y
Hello Bill,
Saturday, April 15, 2006, 3:50:14 PM, you wrote:
BR> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello Bill,
>>
>> Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:28:32 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> BR> I say this as someone who has no vested interest in Blastwave,
>> BR> Sunfreeware, or the companion CD but
Bill Rushmore wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Bill,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:28:32 PM, you wrote:
BR> I say this as someone who has no vested interest in Blastwave,
BR> Sunfreeware, or the companion CD but I still don't see the point, the
BR> "community" alrea
>
>> On 4/13/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I blatantly disagree with the creation of yet another separate
> project that completely replaces services and processes that
> already exist ...
No new project is being created.
A currently existing project is being moved from
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Bill,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:28:32 PM, you wrote:
BR> I say this as someone who has no vested interest in Blastwave,
BR> Sunfreeware, or the companion CD but I still don't see the point, the
BR> "community" already has a more than one "pr
Hello Philip,
Saturday, April 15, 2006, 2:27:45 AM, you wrote:
PB> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 02:13:11AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello James,
>>
>> Thursday, April 13, 2006, 2:06:40 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JC> Hugh McIntyre writes:
>>
>> JC> That's also what Debian does. That fixes the de
Hello Dennis,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 11:37:33 PM, you wrote:
DC> Well done, build a bridge and then watch people complain as they
DC> drive over it. At least I have a few people that tell me that its
DC> great that they can get all this software so easily. I can live
DC> with that I
Hello Bill,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:28:32 PM, you wrote:
BR> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Stephen Lau wrote:
>> I don't understand why there is so much animosity being expressed here. The
>> companion CD project, SunFreeware, and Blastwave have all co-existed
>> peacefully prior to this discussio
Hello Dennis,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 8:59:15 PM, you wrote:
>> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>> If Sun Microsystems Inc. would like to begin from scratch with a
>>> complete new project then there is little that can be done right?
>>
>> Sun has been producing the companion CD for longer than blast
Hello Dennis,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 9:15:20 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I blatantly disagree with the creation of yet another separate
>>>project that completely replaces services and processes that
>>>already exist ...
>>
>> Where, then, would be the right place to discuss the sort
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 02:13:11AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> Thursday, April 13, 2006, 2:06:40 PM, you wrote:
>
> JC> Hugh McIntyre writes:
>
> JC> That's also what Debian does. That fixes the dependency problem, but
> JC> doesn't fix the path problem.
>
> JC> The path
Hello Darren,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 4:46:17 PM, you wrote:
DJM> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, Sun service would not like it (to put it mildly), but other than
>> that it sounds worth considering if you ask me. So James, correct me if
>> I'm wrong... the following is a sample future sce
Hello James,
Thursday, April 13, 2006, 2:06:40 PM, you wrote:
JC> Hugh McIntyre writes:
JC> That's also what Debian does. That fixes the dependency problem, but
JC> doesn't fix the path problem.
JC> The path problem for libraries is that if one installs as
JC> /opt/csw/lib/libfoo.so.1
JC>
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>Given your blog stories about looking for a job, aren't you the leading
>>>example that requiring someone to be gainfully employed to contribute
>>>to blastwave doesn't make much sense?
>>
>>
>> Hmmm .. well now you are getting personal. That's okay.
>> So no one questio
> On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 13:18, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>> While it's
>> still difficult to trust that person/machine, at least you reduce the
>> problem from trusting N entities to trusting 1 (or some small number
>> of cooperating but mutually suspicious individuals).
>
> It's a bit better than
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:04:05PM -0400, Eric Enright wrote:
>
>> That would work for source code, but would it for machine code? How
>> could one peer review a binary package for anything other than "does
>> what it says"? Going with the example Dennis gave earlier, if someone
>> introduced
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 13:15, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Yeah but tell that to the original owner of the infamous severed
> fingers... :)
Well, new developers start out with a neutral reputation. It can go up,
or it can go down.
If you have a proven track record of introducing brokenness (and ge
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Given your blog stories about looking for a job, aren't you the leading
example that requiring someone to be gainfully employed to contribute
to blastwave doesn't make much sense?
Hmmm .. well now you are getting personal. That's okay.
So no one questioned my identity or
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 13:18, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> While it's
> still difficult to trust that person/machine, at least you reduce the
> problem from trusting N entities to trusting 1 (or some small number
> of cooperating but mutually suspicious individuals).
It's a bit better than that -- w
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Eric, this is a really tough policy. It is tough to enforce and tough to
>> tell people, good people, that no, we can not have you building software
>> that will be running in the servers at Lockheed Martin, NASA and MIT. The
>> issue of liability has been a very tough
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 13:04, Eric Enright wrote:
> That would work for source code, but would it for machine code? How
> could one peer review a binary package for anything other than "does
> what it says"? Going with the example Dennis gave earlier, if someone
> introduced a back door into somet
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:04:05PM -0400, Eric Enright wrote:
> That would work for source code, but would it for machine code? How
> could one peer review a binary package for anything other than "does
> what it says"? Going with the example Dennis gave earlier, if someone
> introduced a back d
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
...
We emphasize control over *what* goes in, not *who* makes the change...
Yeah but tell that to the original owner of the infamous severed
fingers... :)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolar
> On 4/14/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> So we have another stage of verification. Someone must actually know this
>> person and be able to verify them. Also a really tough policy to enforce.
>> I think we had a person in Germany that waited for a while before someone
>>
On 4/14/06, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 07:41, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > But some measures, as I am sure you will agree, need to be
> > enforced to ensure safety and quality.
>
> Right, but what should those measures be? Is it better to focus on
> people, or o
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Eric, this is a really tough policy. It is tough to enforce and tough to
tell people, good people, that no, we can not have you building software
that will be running in the servers at Lockheed Martin, NASA and MIT. The
issue of liability has been a very tough one but it wa
On 4/14/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we have another stage of verification. Someone must actually know this
> person and be able to verify them. Also a really tough policy to enforce.
> I think we had a person in Germany that waited for a while before someone
> could drive
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 07:41, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Have there been exceptions? Absolutely. No one ever questioned Eric
> Boutilier or Torrey McMahon ...
You might not question them, but that never stopped us :-)
> But some measures, as I am sure you will agree, need to be
> enforced to ens
[ This is my first and only cross-post to this list as everything
else will take place at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>> I'm both a user of blastwave and another Sun engineer
>> cycle-stealing on this project. From my point of view,
>> what I'd like to see happen with a communi
>
> Twice over the past two years I have made attempts at joining the
> Blastwave maintainer community, only to ultimately be rejected because
> I do not have a "work email address" (I am a student (older student,
> far from a freshman)). This was explained to me by Phil Brown as
> being for legal
On 4/13/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, I'm someone upset at the exlusivity you appear to claim
> > for blastwave; open source is about sharing, but it's also about
> > being allowed to do your own thing.
> >
>
> "exlusivity" ?
>
> I give up. I really do.
So have I :-(
Bart Smaalders wrote:
I'm both a user of blastwave and another Sun engineer
cycle-stealing on this project. From my point of view,
what I'd like to see happen with a community software
distribution for Solaris Nevada is:
1) large scale participation of OpenSolaris developers/users.
2) automatic
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up
> >> open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris.
> >> So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging
OK, pushing this along...
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> Keith Wesolowski wrote:
> >
> > If the project name is your sole objection to the existence
> > of the project
>
> No it isn't. Err, I mean wasn't.
>
> > or to a collaborative effort that would be inclusive of
> > Blastwave, I'm more than willin
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Hi folks,
I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up
open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris.
So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging
efforts living on blastwave.org, I thought I'd poke my head in and
> Hi folks,
>
> I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up
> open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris.
> So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging
> efforts living on blastwave.org, I thought I'd poke my head in and wave.
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up
> open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris.
> So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging
> efforts living on blastwave.org, I thought I'd poke my head in and wave.
>
> *
Hi folks,
I was informed there was a bit of a broohaha over here, about packaging up
open source binaries for solaris and opensolaris.
So, as the author of pkg-get, and the creator/leader of the CSW packaging
efforts living on blastwave.org, I thought I'd poke my head in and wave.
*wave*.
I've b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here I am in 2006 with people upset and outright angry with me.
I have a guy sending me an email that tells me to issue an apology
to Kieth and Steve C. I see another guy wants to run around to
all his clients and tell them to avoid blastwave.
We're not angry
> Here I am in 2006 with people upset and outright angry with me.
> I have a guy sending me an email that tells me to issue an apology
> to Kieth and Steve C. I see another guy wants to run around to
> all his clients and tell them to avoid blastwave.
We're not angry or upset; we're just sur
> "exlusivity" ?
>
> I give up. I really do.
>
> Once upon a time I thought it would be a really great idea to build
> a project that allows people to login and play. To build software
> and "do things".
>
> Like create open source software in an open way, for free, and get
> involv
>> I perceive that Sun would now like to replace all of that with
>> some new project in order to get all things open source, Linux
>> or BSD or UNIX world or maybe even Windows based, into the software
>> product known as Solaris in some sort of supported fashion.
>
> There is no new project;
> I perceive that Sun would now like to replace all of that with
> some new project in order to get all things open source, Linux
> or BSD or UNIX world or maybe even Windows based, into the software
> product known as Solaris in some sort of supported fashion.
There is no new project; the pr
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
