Hi Martin ,
Thanks for the reply .The problem is when we run the mysql_config --libs
,you get the libraries as -L/usr/mysql/5.0/lib/mysql but not -R
/usr/mysql/5.0/lib/mysql,so external programs using mysql_config need to
explicitly set the path of -R to get them working .
Now I'm not sure if
Okay. I don't like the road we're walking down, but I'm not going to
derail this case over it, and will let it time out tomorrow without further
comment.
Danek
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:44:15PM +0530, Sivakumar Shanmugasundaram wrote:
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ss39446/dtrace-ruby2/
Do you really need the "eval" in the Makefile?
You're also removing the space before "ident" in the prototype file.
Otherwise, looks fine.
Danek
James Carlson wrote:
> Danek Duvall writes:
>
>>> They do it presumably for the same reasons several of the OpenSolaris
>>> project teams have felt the need, which is to provide stability within a
>>> given major release family while at the same time making the
>>> newer-generation apps availa
Sivakumar Shanmugasundaram wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Please review the code changes for the following CR 6632022 as mentioned
> in the webrev below. Thanks.
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ss39446/dtrace-ruby2/
>
Siva,
Looks good.
-ps
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Siva
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> And I understand why those are that way. But I'm not asking about why it's
> done in general (like you said, this isn't the apache case), but about this
> particular case. Does lighthttpd need to be treated the same way? Is
> there a rich community of end-user plugins f
Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> I'm not saying there isn't, but I don't know -- I'm not terribly familiar
> with lighttpd. But I strongly get the sense that some teams are versioning
> the installations because they don't actually want to do the work to find
> out whether a) there actually are incompatibi
Hi Sriram,
Its in pecl but source only so its doesn't work with pear. If it did
that would be fine, its doesn't need to be in the core but having it
pear ready will be very useful. I have no idea of the demand for the
module. We're using it in some of our scripts.
Dwayne
Sriram Natarajan
Dwayne
'yp' module was moved out of PHP core into PECL repository and since
then this module hasn't had a "official" release for a very long time.
So, why do you think that we should bundle this module within Open
Solaris ? I was hoping to bundle modules that are under "active"
development /
talling MySQL from source
>> benefit from the fix/improvement.
>>
>> MC
>>
>> --
>> Martin 'MC' Brown, mc at mcslp.com
>> Everything MCslp: http://planet.mcslp.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
>
>
> webstack-discuss mailing list
> webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/webstack-discuss/attachments/20080317/28022330/attachment.html>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:17PM +, Amanda Waite wrote:
> I've been thinking about the options, a single config file shared between
> multiple versions won't work if the user wanted to run more than one
> release simultaneously.
You really need to have the main config file be an SMF config
Sivakumar Shanmugasundaram wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Please review the code changes for the following CR 6632022 as mentioned
> in the webrev below. Thanks.
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ss39446/dtrace-ruby2/
Looks good to me.
--
Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
Danek Duvall writes:
> > They do it presumably for the same reasons several of the OpenSolaris
> > project teams have felt the need, which is to provide stability within a
> > given major release family while at the same time making the
> > newer-generation apps available.
>
> I'd like to take the
Hello!
Please review the code changes for the following CR 6632022 as mentioned
in the webrev below. Thanks.
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ss39446/dtrace-ruby2/
Thanks & Regards
Siva
Hi Martin,
Ah OK! That clears up a lot actually. Thank you.
-J
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Martin MC Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > That'd be fantastic! Really appreciate the effort. Would 5.2 be a
> > candidate for integration?
>
> 5.2 no longer exists - the current release after 5.1 is 6.
Hi Sriram,
Any chance that the yp module can be revived? Seems like something we
should support.
Dwayne
Sriram Natarajan wrote:
> Hi
>
> As you all know, initial integration of PHP within Open Solaris has
> been done for some time now. Since then, we have been refining /
> addressing the in
Hi ,
The CR 6664712 : mysql_config provides incorrect link library
configuration talks about patching of mysql_config to provide the -R
/usr/mysql/5.0/lib/mysql option so that other programs can use it which
depends on mysql .As such mysql binaries doesn't need this path to be
set and I would
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:58:05PM -0700, David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote:
> That said, what I'd like to see (and this was discussed I think in the
> earlier Apache upgrade and PHP cases) is limiting the number of
> outstanding versions to a very small number.
Like Stephen has mentioned a couple of
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:29:53AM -0700, Jyri Virkki wrote:
> Danek Duvall wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:11PM +, Amanda waite wrote:
> > > We felt that it's very likely that users will want to run more than one
> > > version of Lighttpd on the same system and so provisioned for
Hi Sunanda,
> The CR 6664712 : mysql_config provides incorrect link library
> configuration talks about patching of mysql_config to provide the -R
> /usr/mysql/5.0/lib/mysql option so that other programs can use it
> which
> depends on mysql .As such mysql binaries doesn't need this path to be
Hi,
> That'd be fantastic! Really appreciate the effort. Would 5.2 be a
> candidate for integration?
5.2 no longer exists - the current release after 5.1 is 6.0.4
(currently in alpha).
Originally, 5.2 was released to include certain features (including
the new Falcon engine), but we decided
Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:11PM +, Amanda waite wrote:
> > We felt that it's very likely that users will want to run more than one
> > version of Lighttpd on the same system and so provisioned for it.
>
> Why did you think that would be common? Like I said, it doesn
22 matches
Mail list logo
