Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - The second sentnce is just in violation with POSIX.
> >
> > POSIX implicit rules are .SUFFIX: rules only a for this reason only have a
> > target that is a concatenation of source and target suffix. The
>Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -The second sentnce is just in violation with POSIX.
>>
>> POSIX implicit rules are .SUFFIX: rules only a for this reason only have a
>> target that is a concatenation of source and target suffix. There is no
>> prerequisite but only an implicit
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The second sentnce is just in violation with POSIX.
>
> POSIX implicit rules are .SUFFIX: rules only a for this reason only have a
> target that is a concatenation of source and target suffix. There is no
> prerequisite but only an implicit target
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > _If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely on documented behavior of
> > > GNU make. This is quite different from "the authors implement code
> > > that matches GNU make bugs", as you were writing previously.
> > The GNU make documentation claims that
Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Poor Jörg.
>
> I think he may be afflicted with the Casandra complex [1] in which he
> has created the only distro outside of Sun and vast years ( sorry Jörg
> ) of experience but he is ignored or attacked. Like Casandra that
> wandered about the palace
On 7/18/05, Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Any makefile that uses $< in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
> > > > claims to be porta
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Any makefile that uses $< in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
> > > claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
> > > write
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Any makefile that uses $< in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
> > claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
> > write portable software.
>
> _If_ they claim that. Otherw
On 7/15/05, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well this all seems to be a great plan we are still waiting for feed back
> > from the other distro's and individuals that might be interesting in working
> > on this project. As an indiv
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 08:41:47PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
> Once a package reaches step 1, maintainers can then also apply updates,
> upgrades, and security patches once for everyone, instead of everyone
> scrambling to do the work.
Yes, and these are the things where unification would re
On 7/15/05, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well this all seems to be a great plan we are still waiting for feed back
> from the other distro's and individuals that might be interesting in working
> on this project. As an individual if you got involved you could do step one
> or two on
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:> On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
>> then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part. This requires a c
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Assuming you mean the five I identified as planning (AFAICT)
> > redistributable distros:
> >
> > Blastware
> > JDS/GNOME + KDE
> > Pkgsrc
> > Portage
> > SchilliX
> >
> > > ... have anything in common. Th
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any makefile that uses $< in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
> claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
> write portable software.
_If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely on documented behavior of
GNU make. This
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part.
This requires a central repository for these makefiles,
might be at genuni
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
> then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part.
>
> This requires a central repository for these makefiles,
> might be at genunix.org.
>
> Wishful thinking, I know, but what
On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a co
Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
> > but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
> >
>
> Sigh.
>
> Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
> This sort
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you mean the five I identified as planning (AFAICT)
> redistributable distros:
>
> Blastware
> JDS/GNOME + KDE
> Pkgsrc
> Portage
> SchilliX
>
> > ... have anything in common. The answer to that question should be the
> > focus of this discussi
My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
Sigh.
Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
This sort of statement could easily be (mis?)construed as a personal a
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> ...
> ...
> (but I should add that Portage provides a tool for converting to the
> Solaris package standard)...
Correction, it's pkgsrc that provides that tool.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolari
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
>
> > I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
> > at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
> > build a community so we don't just have a community of
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term "illegal"
> > is
> > misplaced.
>
> No. Jörg's further derogatory wording ("broken", "defective" etc.)
> leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly c
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term "illegal" is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording ("broken", "defective" etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice w
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term "illegal" is
> misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording ("broken", "defective" etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice whether to implement a
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did anyone really suspect the police at their door if they violated
the recommendations of some specification?
Probably not, but Jörg's endless campaigns of "I detected that
this program is broken because it does not implement POSIX a
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 13:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Sun could make Sun make more compatible to free make programs like GNU make
> and smake.
Bug# 4866328 covers this.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@openso
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The implicit assumption here is that Sun make will be available as
> open source sometime in the next year and possibly sooner still. If
> you don't trust that assumption, and are f
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did anyone really suspect the police at their door if they violated
> the recommendations of some specification?
Probably not, but Jörg's endless campaigns of "I detected that
this program is broken because it does not implement POSIX and
they did not fix it
Calling non-POSIX code "illegal" is clearly a distortion; it implies
that POSIX is a law, while it is really just a recommendation. Nobody
is required to write conforming applications.
This seems to be an utter nit. I knew exactly what Joerg meant when he
said "illegal". Did anyone really s
On 7/15/05, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's fine to suggest that the makefiles should be fixed; I agree with
> that worthy goal. In many cases, however, it's not worth the effort,
> especially if the upstream maintainers won't accept the changes. In
> these cases it doesn't r
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Let's start talking about Sun make when it is opensource.
Fair enough.
> One problem with GNU make is that it is not well maintained (it still has
> unfixed bugs that have been reported and accepted as bugs in 1998).
> Another p
> Can we all at least agree on two things right now.
>
> #1 if we work together and commit changes/ports/updates/security fixes to
> a single repository it will help out everyone.
Agreed.
> #2 That we will work together to make #1 happen.
Agreed.
> If we can just just agree on these
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a community so we don't just have a community of 1 or two, we
need others opinions as well and hope
On 7/15/05, Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:> If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to> reuse the work of other people:Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
sho
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
> > reuse the work of other people:
>
> Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
> reuse the work of other people:
Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
shows exactly the kind of provincialism that makes it di
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
> >
> > illegal according to which standard document and version ?
> >
James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that there needs to be a separateion between OpenSolaris
> > source and the software base sources. So how about something simple ?
>
>
> Each distribution would be free to keep there own source management
> location/solution, this would only ex
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please give a full reference.
> >
> > POSIX.
>
> That isn't a full reference with version number, but it was enough
> to get me started.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html
> > Well in contraty to GNU make, Sun make
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 13:21, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
> >
> > illegal according to which standard document and versi
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
>
> illegal according to which standard document and version ?
>
> Please give a full reference.
POSIX.
Well in contraty
On 7/14/05, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> James,>> A good point you helped bring up is the repository of> the source code for Solaris/OpenSolaris in which all
> of the package maintainers can share - instead of> everyone (i.e. the Solaris/
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
illegal according to which standard document and version ?
Please give a full reference.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolar
On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James,
>
> A good point you helped bring up is the repository of
> the source code for Solaris/OpenSolaris in which all
> of the package maintainers can share - instead of
> everyone (i.e. the Solaris/OpenSolaris package
> providers) having their o
On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >
> >> >> > --- Joerg Schilling> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote:> >> > >> > > I hope that this short review will help to
> > > understand the problems of us>
--- James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Joerg Schilling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I hope that this short review will help to
> > > understand the problems of us
> > > OpenSolaris developers.
> >
James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am publishing more and more compilable packages that allow to
> > auto-create
> > tar archives with binaries that may be installed. I am currently expecting
> > to be ready to publish all sources for SchilliX-0.3.
>
>
>
> So we should put on the list
On 7/14/05, ken mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>> I hope that this short review will help to> understand the problems of us
> OpenSolaris developers.>> Jörg1. Standard Naming convention for community builtpackages.2. Directory for those packages.3. Agre
On 7/14/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joost van Baal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > Blastwave> > Pkgsrc> > SchillyX> > SunFreeware> > Sun
> >> > Currently all each group has to download and port each package they> > distribute; there is no sharing of code. All 4 groups strive to hav
50 matches
Mail list logo
