Re: [osol-discuss] Netgear FA311 NIC @ CompUSA
Hi Wayne, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: For those who have been trying to explore a move from Linux to Solaris, the most frustrating problem (plse note I didn't say one of . . .) is the inability to make NIC work under Solaris. Sun's developers seem determined to exclude ALL of those drivers for NICs that are embedded in AMD-based motherboards. (Strangely enough, most OpenSolaris-derivatives, including NexentaOS and BeleniX, have no problem with those cheap/free but essentially ubiquitous NICs.) That's quite a claim to make. I would dearly love to know on what evidence you base the claim about Sun's engineers. Which devices in particular are you bitter about? This week, CompUSA has Netgear FA311 NIC on sale for $4.99 (after rebate). Listed at the very end of the Solaris HCL, it works flawlessly with Solaris10u2 and SE44. This is good to know. I wonder what the shipping charges outside of the continental USA are, though. BTW, which driver are you using for this card? That's the sort of info which will most definitely help others. James C. McPherson ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
If the opsol libc is not redistributable how do the actual existing opsol distros do it? What is Belenix doing? What is Schillix using? Did they port the gnu libc to OpenSolaris? Did they port the BSD libc to opsol? How can someone distribute an operating system without the c library? I would be glad if someone can explain it to me? Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Gueven Bay wrote: How can someone distribute an operating system without the c library? This is the C++ library, not C. Hugh. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Object Storage Device (OSD) support for Solaris
On Thu, James Carlson wrote: Cyril Plisko writes: The T10 OSD model provides a number of advantages over the aging block-based storage model in areas such as performance, scalability, and security. Storage vendors are currently developing storage devices that support the T10 OSD protocol, and OSD support for other operating systems is under development. How does this project align with ZFS and the rest of our storage offerings? NFSv4.1's pNFS feature set can use an OSD target as a data store (as well as a files base data store and a block based data store). In fact, one might argue that in the pNFS context a files based target and an OSD target look very much the same. In any case, this aligns well with the NFSv4.1 project that I recently proposed. Spencer ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Bonnie Corwin wrote: Moinak Ghosh wrote On 09/07/06 01:32,: Martin Bochnig wrote: David Comay wrote: I don't know the answer about redistributing libC* but have you brought up the DLJ question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the appropriate forum http://forums.java.net/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=94 I'll make some inqueries myself but the DLJ folks might know the answer and certainly would want to know about issues which prevent the license from being used by other distributions. Hi Dave, they are well aware of it, according to the Belenix guys. They do know the issue and say it's being worked on since Mai, when The libC stuff is listed on the roadmap page, so it is a known thing: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ And we do realize we have passed 8/31/06 which is what was on the roadmap. I'm getting an update from the team to find out when re-distributable binaries will be posted. I'll send an update when I have it. Thanks. Bonnie That would be nice. Cool. BTW, I have contacted [EMAIL PROTECTED] and already got a response, that he will try to resolve the current dilemma. Thank you, Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Hugh McIntyre wrote: Gueven Bay wrote: How can someone distribute an operating system without the c library? This is the C++ library, not C. Hugh. Despite the fact, that somebody else made that mistake/confusion (and that it is good that you corrected that error, so I don't need to send out the other email, where I wanted to correct this). Does it change anything on the matter itself ?? I guess 90++% of commercial software for Solaris are built either using SUNWspro's C++ compiler/libs, or maybe JAVA (which, by itself, also requires /usr/lib/libC* because it is or contains C++ and is SUNWspro-built). So what did you want to express? I ask the now correct question again, in the name of Gueven Bay (plus CSW_Blastwave [which is 9GB big], Belenix, Schillix and marTux) : How can someone distribute an operating system without the C++ library? But okay okay, no trouble. I do see now, that people are indeed working on it. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
If the opsol libc is not redistributable how do the actual existing opsol distros do it? What is Belenix doing? What is Schillix using? Did they port the gnu libc to OpenSolaris? Did they port the BSD libc to opsol? libC not libc. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
_ Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems Tel: +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 Web: www.webmink.net, AIM: webmink Current timezone: UTC+1 (UK) On Sep 8, 2006, at 08:43, Martin Bochnig wrote: Bonnie Corwin wrote: Moinak Ghosh wrote On 09/07/06 01:32,: Martin Bochnig wrote: David Comay wrote: I don't know the answer about redistributing libC* but have you brought up the DLJ question to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the appropriate forum http://forums.java.net/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=94 I'll make some inqueries myself but the DLJ folks might know the answer and certainly would want to know about issues which prevent the license from being used by other distributions. Hi Dave, they are well aware of it, according to the Belenix guys. They do know the issue and say it's being worked on since Mai, when The libC stuff is listed on the roadmap page, so it is a known thing: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ And we do realize we have passed 8/31/06 which is what was on the roadmap. I'm getting an update from the team to find out when re-distributable binaries will be posted. I'll send an update when I have it. Thanks. Bonnie That would be nice. Cool. BTW, I have contacted [EMAIL PROTECTED] and already got a response, that he will try to resolve the current dilemma. Actually, Bonnie's response is part of that resolution. As she says, the plan had been for those files to be re-distributable by now, apologies for the delay. And there's no conspiracy involved, BTW :-) S. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Simon Phipps wrote: _ Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer, Sun Microsystems Tel: +1 650 352 6327/USx69758 Web: www.webmink.net, AIM: webmink Current timezone: UTC+1 (UK) [...] The libC stuff is listed on the roadmap page, so it is a known thing: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ And we do realize we have passed 8/31/06 which is what was on the roadmap. I'm getting an update from the team to find out when re-distributable binaries will be posted. I'll send an update when I have it. Thanks. Bonnie That would be nice. Cool. BTW, I have contacted [EMAIL PROTECTED] and already got a response, that he will try to resolve the current dilemma. Actually, Bonnie's response is part of that resolution. As she says, the plan had been for those files to be re-distributable by now, apologies for the delay. And there's no conspiracy involved, BTW :-) S. Thank you! ~m ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: New install, trying to bring up X login blanks screen and locks me out
I believe I have a working scratch install of S10u2 on my new server box, but when I boot it, after relatively few seconds I get a message on the screen that X login screen is coming and I should wait for it. Then the screen blanks, and I cannot talk to the system through the keyboard again. I don't currently have it on a LAN so I have no *other* way to talk to it (but I notice that the default tools installed don't include sshd anyway). During the install, it went into graphics mode fine, and seemed to find the name of the video card and be happy with it. It was using the Xsun X11 server at install time. When the system is installed to HDD, it defaults to the Xorg X11 server. So, short-term I want to turn off X login and just work through the console. I might be able to type fast enough to do that before the login screen comes up, if I knew the commands. It'd be an svcadmin disable something type of command? For some value of something? Try to boot into single user mode, by editing the boot command line on the initial grub boot screen; add a -s option at the end of the kernel .. multiboot line. Login with the root password in single user mode, and try to fix the X11 server setup. What probably works is switching back from Xorg to the Xsun server. This can be done by running the command kdmconfig. Follow the instructions on the first screen. You can also change various Xsun settings from within kdmconfig. Or you have to find out why Xorg fails, and fix the Xorg X11 server setup. You have to look at the /var/log/Xorg.0.log and /var/dt/Xerrors file for possible errors, and maybe construct a custom /etc/X11/xorg.conf file in case the Xorg autoconfiguration has failed. An initial xorg.conf file template can be constructed by running /usr/X11/bin/xorgconfig or /usr/X11/bin/Xorg -configure Anybody have any idea what? I think of XDM as the thing that provides X login screens at consoles. Is there a way to disable it by editing files in failsafe mode instead of trying to race with the X login screen? Long-term I guess I want to get X really working, but that can wait until I can see my system and install software and so forth. I'm just starting to review the SMF section in the administrator's guide, we'll see if that clues me. The failsafe environment is really icky. No command-line editing or command recall or filename completion, Yep, the failsafe miniroot starts a standard /bin/sh bourne shell, so no command line editing. I think you can exec a ksh or csh, both should be available in the failsafe environment. These shells could be configured to support command line editing or command recall or filename completion, but... and more doesn't even work; it seems to exit at the end of the first screen. I'm hoping not to spend much time there. A known bug, this was broken the day newboot appeared in Solaris x86. I filed bug 6342722: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6342722 The fix is quite simple, but noone seems to care... The exec /dev/console /dev/console 21 in the /sbin/sulogin script in the miniroot archive needs to be fixed;stdin/stdout/stderr should all be opened in read/write mode. I think the source for the /sbin/sulogin shell script isn't part of OpenSolaris. Workaround is to run the following command before trying to use more in the failsafe environment: exec 2/dev/console Of cause $TERM isn't set in the failsafe environment either, so you also have to run TERM=sun export TERM to make more (or vi) happy. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] VMware Workstation 5.5.2 Build 29772
I installed it yesterday, along with snv_47. Worked like a champ so far. I haven't installed the VM tools package yet on that machine, but I would expect that the mouse/video will work as usual (with the same video workarounds). bill. Dennis Clarke wrote: There is a new release of VMWare Workstation out. VMware Workstation 5.5.2 Latest Version: 5.5.2 | 8/10/06 | Build 29772 Anyone done any testing with snv_46 yet? I mean .. before I get to it tonight ? :-) -- --- Bill WalkerGeek at Large [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Engineer 703.850.9527 http://www.thebunker.com Sun Microsystems Federal http://blogs.sun.com/mrbill Today is President's Day, and it's hard not to feel sad how far we've sunk since George Washington said I cannot tell a lie -- I cut down that intern's cherry tree, if you know what I mean. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Object Storage Device (OSD) support for Solaris
Spencer Shepler writes: How does this project align with ZFS and the rest of our storage offerings? NFSv4.1's pNFS feature set can use an OSD target as a data store (as well as a files base data store and a block based data store). In fact, one might argue that in the pNFS context a files based target and an OSD target look very much the same. OK; thanks. It seems slightly odd to have two very similar features (OSD+iSCSI looks functionally like traditional NFS to me), and there wasn't a mention of this in the original proposal, so it's good to hear. For ZFS alignment, I'm curious about ACL handling with OSD and what happens if Solaris becomes an OSD target rather than initiator, but perhaps those are things for the eventual project mailing list. -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
All:
I did the following analysis of Java SE 5.0 and found the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10% pwd
/usr/local/java/jdk1.5.0_07/jre/lib/sparc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11% foreach f (`find . -name '*.so'`)
foreach? ldd $f /tmp/javalibs.txt
foreach? echo $f
foreach? end
Then, by examining the output of...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11% awk '{print $3}' /tmp/javalibs.txt | grep '^/' | sort -u
I find that the only libs required for Java (for the purposes of addressing
the DLJ concerns in this thread) are:
libCrun.so.1
libdemangle.so.1
HTH,
--Tom
FFI on the DLJ please see:
https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Tom Marble wrote:
All:
I did the following analysis of Java SE 5.0 and found the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10% pwd
/usr/local/java/jdk1.5.0_07/jre/lib/sparc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11% foreach f (`find . -name '*.so'`)
foreach? ldd $f /tmp/javalibs.txt
foreach? echo $f
foreach? end
Then, by examining the output of...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11% awk '{print $3}' /tmp/javalibs.txt | grep '^/' | sort -u
I find that the only libs required for Java (for the purposes of addressing
the DLJ concerns in this thread) are:
libCrun.so.1
libdemangle.so.1
HTH,
--Tom
FFI on the DLJ please see:
https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/
Are you saying, SUNW should not make the other 3 libC* libs
redistributable at all ???
Most bigger (and SUNWpro-compiled) things need at least one of the four
/usr/lib/libC* libs!
### And one single missing lib, is _too_ much as you know. ###
See yourself, for example only in /opt/csw/bin (will be much worse in
/opt/csw/lib) :
# ldd /newroot/opt/csw/bin/*|grep libC /tmp/libC.ascii
# grep libC /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
647
# grep libCrun.so /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
317
# grep libCstd.so /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
304
# grep libC.so.3 /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
0
# grep libC.so.5 /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
0
# grep libC.so /tmp/libC.ascii | wc -l
0
So csw indeed only depends on libCrun.so and libCstd.so.
Not on libC.so.3 or libC.so.5 .
But having all 4 is certainly the best bet in order to ensure full
compatibility with _arbitrary_ 3rd party apps added by user choice.
However, maybe libCrun.so and libCstd.so could be made redistributable
before libC.so.3 and libC.so.5, and therefore the opening process could
be accellerated?
--
Martin
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Compiling sysbench on Solaris 10
Thank you so much for everyone's input. I was just able to successfully compile sysbench (hurray). What I did was: # Removed the current sysbench source directory rm -r -f sysbench-0.4.7 # Extracted a fresh copy from the tarball. tar -xf sysbench-0.4.7.tar # Changed my pwd to sysbench-0.4.7 cd sysbench-0.4.7 # Set up my environment CC=/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc CFLAGS=-xarch=v9 LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/mysql/lib:/usr/ccs/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib:/lib:/usr/ucblib PATH=/opt/SUNWspro/bin:/opt/SUNWspro/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:.:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/local/mysql/bin:/usr/local/bin:.:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/local/mysql/bin # Cleaned out -xc99=none which was being produced by mysql_config by using a slightly modified version of the one liner recommended in this thread find . -name Makefile -print | while read i; do sed -e s/-xc99=none//g $i $i.orig; mv $i.orig $i; done # run make make # finally install make install A big thanks to everyone who took their precious time to help me get this going. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Frank This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] VMware Workstation 5.5.2 Build 29772
I installed it yesterday, along with snv_47. Worked like a champ so far. I haven't installed the VM tools package yet on that machine, but I would expect that the mouse/video will work as usual (with the same video workarounds). Thank you very much you Large Geek you. :-) er Geek at Large .. I'm going though the motions here with it also but, sadly, installing OS/2 Warp on it first. Its a long sad sick story but I'm stuck with it at the moment. Dennis Dennis Clarke wrote: There is a new release of VMWare Workstation out. VMware Workstation 5.5.2 Latest Version: 5.5.2 | 8/10/06 | Build 29772 Anyone done any testing with snv_46 yet? I mean .. before I get to it tonight ? :-) -- --- Bill WalkerGeek at Large [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Engineer 703.850.9527 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Tom Marble wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: Tom Marble wrote: I find that the only libs required for Java (for the purposes of addressing the DLJ concerns in this thread) are: libCrun.so.1 libdemangle.so.1 Are you saying, SUNW should not make the other 3 libC* libs redistributable at all ??? Not at all! Just wanted to point out what is required for Java. ### And one single missing lib, is _too_ much as you know. ### Of course! But having all 4 is certainly the best bet in order to ensure full compatibility with _arbitrary_ 3rd party apps added by user choice. However, maybe libCrun.so and libCstd.so could be made redistributable before libC.so.3 and libC.so.5, and therefore the opening process could be accellerated? We are exquisitely aware of this and are working as quickly as possible to resolve it. Regards, --Tom Okay Tom, very good input / hint ! Thank you. Regards, Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
You know Mr Casper, My question is still not answered, yet. Even if the mentioned libraries are Visual Basic libs, this does not matter. But what matter is the qeustion: How and what exactly the existing distributions are distributing -aka giving away, giving to the users- if the system libs are not open. How is it made that these systems of Schillix and Belenix are running if they could not get the libs? What have they - the devs of the distros - done to get the replacement for these system dependant libs? Or are they even distributing libs that no one must not distribute? (This I want to know in my way to discover what exactly the differences between the various OpenSolaris distributions are. I want to know what have been replaced and how. But there is not here not on the web-sites of the distributions documentations about it.) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Martin Bochnig wrote: Tom Marble wrote: I find that the only libs required for Java (for the purposes of addressing the DLJ concerns in this thread) are: libCrun.so.1 libdemangle.so.1 Are you saying, SUNW should not make the other 3 libC* libs redistributable at all ??? Not at all! Just wanted to point out what is required for Java. ### And one single missing lib, is _too_ much as you know. ### Of course! But having all 4 is certainly the best bet in order to ensure full compatibility with _arbitrary_ 3rd party apps added by user choice. However, maybe libCrun.so and libCstd.so could be made redistributable before libC.so.3 and libC.so.5, and therefore the opening process could be accellerated? We are exquisitely aware of this and are working as quickly as possible to resolve it. Regards, --Tom _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Java Performance Engineer Sun Microsystems, Inc. http://blogs.sun.com/tmarbleWhat do you want from Java Libre? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Gueven Bay wrote: You know Mr Casper, My question is still not answered, yet. Even if the mentioned libraries are Visual Basic libs, this does not matter. But what matter is the qeustion: How and what exactly the existing distributions are distributing -aka giving away, giving to the users- if the system libs are not open. How is it made that these systems of Schillix and Belenix are running if they could not get the libs? What have they - the devs of the distros - done to get the replacement for these system dependant libs? Or are they even distributing libs that no one must not distribute? (This I want to know in my way to discover what exactly the differences between the various OpenSolaris distributions are. I want to know what have been replaced and how. But there is not here not on the web-sites of the distributions documentations about it.) Thanks for your interest, I think I can give you the answer: My own distribution marTux_0.2 (sparcv9, [the x86 and x64 version is working but not yet available for public download]) forces users to first set up a link and route to the internet. A dumb script then automatically fetches a public patch, extracts and automatically installs it to a location, known by marTux's default environment.. The same procedure after each LiveDVD-boot!!:-( Router/Internet required to run any useful stuff. NOTE: The patches are anonymously available to any nastiest persons in the world, without any kind of authorization! So where is the legal difference ?? CSW's KDE for example would not run otherwise (It is even gcc-compiled and does start to boot. However - unfortunately does it depend on many libs from the CSW stack, that are SUNWspro compiled and then depend on /usr/lib/libC* (== /opt/SUNWspro/lib/libC*). Screenshots like those would not be possible without a downloaded/installed /usr/lib/libCstd.so and /usr/lib/libCrun.so : http://www.martux.org/Screenshots/sparcv9/00_sb150_onboard_pgx64_kde3.4x.png http://www.martux.org/Screenshots/sparcv9 (Everything from /opt/csw needed to be completely rebuilt with gcc otherwise, from scratch.) Belenix does the same, but not on a LiveCD-boot, but eventually after installation to hdd. Not sure, what Schilling does. FYI, here is my mini-shellscript for the upcoming marTux_0.2 Official Blastwave CSW Edition for x64/x86 : bash-3.00# ls -al /newroot/bin/get-libs lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Aug 31 12:19 /newroot/bin/get-libs - wget_SUNWspro_C++_libCxxx_libs.sh bash-3.00# cat /newroot/bin/get-libs #!/bin/sh echo echo Your NICs should already be DHCP - configured now. echo Otherwise quit via ^C and run /bin/net-up first. echo echo Continuing in 5 seconds ... echo sleep 5 ##/bin/net-up mkdir /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp cd /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp wget http://patches.sun.com/all_unsigned/119964-07.zip echo echo Extracting ... echo unzip 119964-07.zip echo echo Copying libs to /tmp/readwrite/lib ... echo cp -R */SUNWlibC*/reloc/usr/lib /tmp/readwrite echo echo DONE. echo bash-3.00# uname -a SunOS AMD64-Ultra20 5.11 snv_39 i86pc i386 i86pc bash-3.00# -- Regards, Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Martin Bochnig wrote: #!/bin/sh echo echo Your NICs should already be DHCP - configured now. echo Otherwise quit via ^C and run /bin/net-up first. echo echo Continuing in 5 seconds ... echo sleep 5 ##/bin/net-up mkdir /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp cd /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp wget http://patches.sun.com/all_unsigned/119964-07.zip echo echo Extracting ... echo unzip 119964-07.zip echo echo Copying libs to /tmp/readwrite/lib ... echo cp -R */SUNWlibC*/reloc/usr/lib /tmp/readwrite echo echo DONE. echo Oh, I'm wasting memory here. It is only a single patch on x86/x64, rather than two separate patches like on sparc (one for 32bit-sparc, another for sparcv9). I therefore can replace cp -R */SUNWlibC*/reloc/usr/lib /tmp/readwrite with mv */SUNWlibC*/reloc/usr/lib /tmp/readwrite on x64/x86. I mean, the fact that this script was concepted as a dumb one, does not mean, it should waste resources unnecessarily. -- Martin Bochnig ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Better still: #!/bin/sh echo echo Your NICs should already be DHCP - configured now. echo Otherwise quit via ^C and run /bin/net-up first. echo echo Continuing in 5 seconds ... echo sleep 5 ##/bin/net-up mkdir /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp cd /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp wget http://patches.sun.com/all_unsigned/119964-07.zip echo echo Extracting ... echo unzip 119964-07.zip echo echo Copying libs to /tmp/readwrite/lib ... echo mv */SUNWlibC*/reloc/usr/lib /tmp/readwrite rm -R /tmp/readwrite/libs.tmp echo echo DONE. echo Maybe I should also add a HUGE woahh hoaahh license notice for that tiny dumb thing ;-) -- M. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: VMware Workstation 5.5.2 Build 29772
The only computer I use that has OS/2 on it is a cash machine ;-) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Some questions....
Boyd Adamson wrote: The global priorities are what is used by the scheduler to decide what to do in the disp() function. Each class provides a mapping from user to global priorities. I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of a way to manipulate the global priorities directly. If you just want to specify priorities in terms of what ends up being the global priority range, then FX is probably for you, although to specify a priority greater than 0, privileges are required. -Eric ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Thank you bochnig for the elaborate answer. It is now clearer to me. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Gueven Bay wrote: You know Mr Casper, My question is still not answered, yet. Even if the mentioned libraries are Visual Basic libs, this does not matter. But what matter is the qeustion: How and what exactly the existing distributions are distributing -aka giving away, giving to the users- if the system libs are not open. How is it made that these systems of Schillix and Belenix are running if they could not get the libs? What have they - the devs of the distros - done to get the replacement for these system dependant libs? All the necessary system libraries are open. The libraries like libCrun, libCstd, libdemangle etc. are libraries specific to the C++ runtime environment for binaries compiled using SUN Studio compiler. These libraries are bundled by default in Solaris Express, but are not necessary for the OS to function. These are only required by C++ apps compiled using SUN Studio. In BeleniX most of the GNU and other free software are compiled using gcc. Thus they have a dependency on libgcc_s.so which is freely redistributable. Or are they even distributing libs that no one must not distribute? No - as above. (This I want to know in my way to discover what exactly the differences between the various OpenSolaris distributions are. I want to know what have been replaced and how. But there is not here not on the web-sites of the distributions documentations about it.) For BeleniX refer to the following: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/behind_the_scenes.html http://blogs.sun.com/moinakg Regards, Moinak. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Martin Bochnig wrote: Gueven Bay wrote: [...] NOTE: The patches are anonymously available to any nastiest persons in the world, without any kind of authorization! So where is the legal difference ?? From the little that I know of legal terms, the Right To Use and Right To Re-distribute are distinct. Right To Use applies to the current SUN Studio software while Right To Re-distribute is restricted to a few binaries. Regards, Moinak. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Can I finally re-distribute /usr/lib/libC* ?
Moinak Ghosh wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: Gueven Bay wrote: [...] NOTE: The patches are anonymously available to any nastiest persons in the world, without any kind of authorization! So where is the legal difference ?? From the little that I know of legal terms, the Right To Use and Right To Re-distribute are distinct. Right To Use applies to the current SUN Studio software while Right To Re-distribute is restricted to a few binaries. Regards, Moinak. Yes, RTU versus RTD. However, quite a few external sites _are_ allowed to redistribute SUNW's patches. Even including the bins we are discussing about: http://www.google.com/search?q=119964-07hl=enlr=start=10sa=N Completely external sites like http://ftp.us.xemacs.org/ftp/tigerd1/patches/current_signed/ or even http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.sun.co.uk/patchroot/current_unsigned/119601-06.README . They all _do_ redistribute those patches (and therefore bins and libs). Why are they allowed to? Do they have a special agreement? Or is it something different legally to redistribute a patch? Or may even be, all those sites are violating SUNW's legal terms? I just wonder. FURTHER: Why not just giving _us_ distributors a special agreement, i.e. that allowed *us*, and only us, to redistribute those libs. Maybe we could offer special limited 3rd-party-redistributable versions of our distros (without those files, our current releases), as well as un-redistributable flavours that have the files on DVD, but cannot legally be redistributed by external 3rd parties. I mean: Our own distributions (at least your Belenix - and mine) can only be downloaded currently from a SUNW-funded site (if I understood that correctly, genunix is a SUNW paid site, but not sure) . That means, they actually are not even offered externally: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/belenix_site/belenix_home.html http://www.genunix.org/distributions//martux/marTux_0.2/ (http://www.martux.org only contains the links, not the content) Where is the problem? I do not understand these lawyers . Okay, everyone in the free world is required to do what they say (which is good to a certain extent). But not necessarily the full 100% of their decisions are always 100.00% correct? I don't know. Anyways: SUNW is finally working on it, and our download-workaround works better-than-nothing. I will stop making noise now. And wait y.another month. Thanks to everyone from SUNW and elsewhere, who has offered to help:-) Regards, Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Compiling sysbench on Solaris 10
Frank Mash wrote:
# Set up my environment
CC=/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc
CFLAGS=-xarch=v9
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/mysql/lib:/usr/ccs/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/local/lib:/lib:/usr/ucblib
These three paths are searched by ld(1) by default, so unless you're playing
some games where you need to search these directories before /usr/local|ucblib
(perhaps multiple libraries of the same name exist?), then setting these paths
seems redundant. Plus, the ucblib is old ucb compatibility libraries, do you
really need to link against anything in this path?
Set LD_OPTIONS=-Dfiles and you'll discover every file that is brought in to
the link-edit. You can use this to verify whether the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
components are really necessary.
I'd have thought things could be simpler by adding:
-L usr/local/mysql/lib -L /usr/local/lib
to the link-edit command line (LDFLAGS?).
And don't forget, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is recognized by the runtime linker (ld.so.1)
too. Thus you are forcing all commands executed within this environment to
search for their runtime dependencies in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH directories.
There again, perhaps you need the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to execute commands as
part of your build ... what do I know :-)
--
Rod
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Compiling sysbench on Solaris 10
Rod Evans wrote: I'd have thought things could be simpler by adding: -L usr/local/mysql/lib -L /usr/local/lib to the link-edit command line (LDFLAGS?). And don't forget, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is recognized by the runtime linker (ld.so.1) too. Thus you are forcing all commands executed within this environment to search for their runtime dependencies in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH directories. There again, perhaps you need the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to execute commands as part of your build ... what do I know :-) Isn't that why you also set the RPATH? In this example it would be ... -L usr/local/mysql/lib -L /usr/local/lib -R /usr/local/mysql/lib -R /usr/local/lib ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: New install, trying to bring up X login blanks screen and locks me out
On 9/8/06, Jürgen Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Login with the root password in single user mode, and try to fix the X11 server setup. What probably works is switching back from Xorg to the Xsun server. This can be done by running the command kdmconfig. Yep, works fine. Thanks! I'll play with getting X working *well* at some future date no doubt, but this box is meant to be a disk server and mostly I'll be managing it via ssh; the priority was to be able to boot, and I can now do that. Also thanks *very* much for your tips on failsafe mode, which I haven't used yet, but which I expect will make me amazingly more happy with the times I end up in failsafe. -- David Dyer-Bennet, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
Hello all, I was so happy earlier to finally get Sysbench to compile (thanks to all the brains here). Unfortunately as much as I wanted to solve my next compilation issue myself, I can't. Both me and my SA have been working on this but we cannot get a grip on this. The issue involves compiling super-smack-1.3 on Solaris 10. configure runs fine but make produces the following output ## make all-recursive Making all in src g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I/usr/local/mysql/include-g -O2 -c super-smack.cc In file included from /usr/include/sys/wait.h:24, from /usr/include/stdlib.h:22, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/cstdlib:52, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/bits/stl_algobase.h:67, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/memory:54, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/string:48, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/bits/locale_classes.h:47, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/bits/ios_base.h:47, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/ios:49, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/ostream:45, from /usr/local/include/c++/3.3.2/iostream:45, from super-smack.cc:22: /usr/include/sys/siginfo.h:259: error: 'ctid_t' is used as a type, but is not defined as a type. /usr/include/sys/siginfo.h:390: error: 'ctid_t' is used as a type, but is not defined as a type. *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `super-smack.o' Current working directory /home/fmashraqi/install/bench/ss/super-smack-1.3/src *** Error code 1 The following command caused the error: set fnord ; amf=$2; \ dot_seen=no; \ target=`echo all-recursive | sed s/-recursive//`; \ list='src'; for subdir in $list; do \ echo Making $target in $subdir; \ if test $subdir = .; then \ dot_seen=yes; \ local_target=$target-am; \ else \ local_target=$target; \ fi; \ (cd $subdir make $local_target) \ || case $amf in *=*) exit 1;; *k*) fail=yes;; *) exit 1;; esac; \ done; \ if test $dot_seen = no; then \ make $target-am || exit 1; \ fi; test -z $fail make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive' Current working directory /home/fmashraqi/install/bench/ss/super-smack-1.3 *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive-am' I cannot figure out why it will be complaining for contract id (ctdid) header not present in /usr/include/sys/siginfo. Once again this is probably something really trivial and 101 but I can really use some input. Thanks in advance, Frank This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
Frank Mash writes: /usr/include/sys/siginfo.h:259: error: 'ctid_t' is used as a type, but is not defined as a type. /usr/include/sys/siginfo.h:390: error: 'ctid_t' is used as a type, but is not defined as a type. This looks like the usual gcc fixincludes issue. If you upgrade the system, you have to rerun the gcc fixincludes script, because gcc keeps squirreled-away copies of the system header files (!). -- James Carlson, KISS Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
RE: [osol-discuss] Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
I cannot figure out why it will be complaining for contract id (ctdid) header not present in /usr/include/sys/siginfo. Once again this is probably something really trivial and 101 but I can really use some input. It's not complaining about the header not beeing there but ctid_t not defined as a type. Try to add #include libcontract.h Before the #include iostream and try again the compile. Greetz, -- Markus ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:20:13PM +0200, Dhr, Markus ICC-H wrote: I cannot figure out why it will be complaining for contract id (ctdid) header not present in /usr/include/sys/siginfo. Once again this is probably something really trivial and 101 but I can really use some input. It's not complaining about the header not beeing there but ctid_t not defined as a type. Try to add #include libcontract.h Before the #include iostream and try again the compile. libcontract.h isn't necessary, appropriate, or helpful here; ctid_t is defined in types.h, which is already included by siginfo.h. It sounds like your compiler is using corrupt or out-of-date header files. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
Frank -- In case this helps... http://blogs.sun.com/dp/entry/smacking_super_smack_into_shape ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Proposal: Project star integration
Thanks, Joerg. Your proposal has been seconded. I'll contact you offline to get you set up. On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Hi, as it seems that real work is done with ksh93 integration after a maling list and a project hast bee created, I propose to create something similar for star. Note that there was a plan to have star in Solaris 10 and the related PSARC has been approved long time ago and we need to get ready before the feature freeze for Solaris 11 hits. The first step would be to interate the software from the star package into OpenSolaris, to replace /etc/rmt with the version from star and to convert fsdump/ufsrestore to use star's librmt. This needs to be done before the feature freeze hits. The second step would be to replace /usr/bin/tar by star, but this may be done in a more relaxed way J?rg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Object Storage Device (OSD) support for Solaris
Thanks, Ed. You have seconds. I'll contact you offline to get you set up. On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Ed Nadolski wrote: The T10 SCSI OSD specification defines a command protocol that allows data to be stored and managed as logical objects rather than as blocks of data. We would like to propose an opensolaris project to provide support in Solaris for OSD devices. This will consist of the utilities, programming APIs, device drivers, and relevant kernel changes needed to support devices that implement the T10 OSD command set. The T10 OSD model provides a number of advantages over the aging block-based storage model in areas such as performance, scalability, and security. Storage vendors are currently developing storage devices that support the T10 OSD protocol, and OSD support for other operating systems is under development. The OSD team members are: Harriet Coverston Eric Taylor Ed Nadolski Rob Gittins Anton Rang Andrew Hastings Brian Reitz Omer Asad The T10 OSD spec is at: http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/osd/osd-r10.pdf Regards, Ed -- Edmund Nadolski Sun Microsystems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Netgear FA311 NIC @ CompUSA
For those who have been trying to explore a move from Linux to Solaris, the most frustrating problem (plse note I didn't say one of . . .) is the inability to make NIC work under Solaris. Sun's developers seem determined to exclude ALL of those drivers for NICs that are embedded in AMD-based motherboards. (Strangely enough, most OpenSolaris-derivatives, including NexentaOS and BeleniX, have no problem with those cheap/free but essentially ubiquitous NICs.) That's quite a claim to make. I would dearly love to know on what evidence you base the claim about Sun's engineers. Which devices in particular are you bitter about? This week, CompUSA has Netgear FA311 NIC on sale for $4.99 (after rebate). Listed at the very end of the Solaris HCL, it works flawlessly with Solaris10u2 and SE44. This is good to know. I wonder what the shipping charges outside of the continental USA are, though. BTW, which driver are you using for this card? That's the sort of info which will most definitely help others. James C. McPherson ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org We run an OpenSuSE/OpenSolaris/OpenOffice study group here in Honolulu and have a dozen or so all sorts of AMD-based PCs in our lab. To the best of my memory, all our Athlon64-based motherboards come with on-board gigabit Marvell NICs. Solaris HCL does show quite a number of on-board Marvell Yukon drivers, but all but one are 32-bit. Unless luck strikes, which never happened to any of our Athlon64 PCs, Solaris means an extra effort to buy and install an external NIC. All things considered, we feel that both Solaris10u2 (JDS 3) and Solaris Express (Gnome 2.14) provide a desktop environment that appear to be best suited as the Microsoft Windows replacement for businesses including courts and other government offices. However, intentionally or not, failure to provide drivers for perhaps some of the most prevalent NICs makes it difficult to bring up this subject. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Compiling sysbench on Solaris 10
Torrey McMahon wrote: Rod Evans wrote: I'd have thought things could be simpler by adding: -L usr/local/mysql/lib -L /usr/local/lib to the link-edit command line (LDFLAGS?). And don't forget, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is recognized by the runtime linker (ld.so.1) too. Thus you are forcing all commands executed within this environment to search for their runtime dependencies in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH directories. There again, perhaps you need the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to execute commands as part of your build ... what do I know :-) Isn't that why you also set the RPATH? In this example it would be ... -L usr/local/mysql/lib -L /usr/local/lib -R /usr/local/mysql/lib -R /usr/local/lib Yes. A -L path tells ld(1) where to look for dependencies. A -R path, records a path in the built object, telling ld.so.1(1) where to look for the dependency at runtime. Note: you should avoid telling ld(1) to look in directories it doesn't need to, just as you should avoid recording runpaths in objects that aren't needed. Sometimes the -L and -R path are the same. But, for build environments like OSNet, they can be different: compilation environment: -L $(ROOTLIBDIR)/fm runtime environment: % elfdump -d /usr/lib/fm/fmd/fmd | grep RPATH [14] RPATH0x30c3 /usr/lib/fm which was created via -R /usr/lib/fm -- Rod ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Upgrade, downgrade, patches, etc.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: How stuck am I once I decide to install Solaris 10, or Solaris Community Edition? How much do I have to blow away to switch to the other one? I mean, obviously it's easy if I scrub the disks down and start over from scratch, but I'm wondering if there are less-drastic options, and how hard they are. You can upgrade from Solaris 10 to the community edition (which is based off of the Solaris Nevada code) Also, what's the process for finding and applying periodic security and other important updates to the OS and the layered products or whatever the term used here is? Is it the same for s10 and sce (presumably with a different web site as the repository!). In particular, is what's documented in the sysadmin manuals right for both, or just for s10? (I haven't read that part yet, hence the vagueness.) The Community Edition does not supply patches. You get security fixes by using bfu or by upgrading. For Solaris 10, there is normally a security cluster you can find out about new security issues by signing up for SunAlerts. As you're getting started with installs/upgrades/etc, you may want to bounce over to install-discuss :) have fun! Valerie -- Valerie Bubb, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025. 650-786-0461 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Netgear FA311 NIC @ CompUSA
Have you considered requesting such support via http://www.opensolaris.org/bug/report.jspa Having such requests for enhancements let the community know about the missing functionality and provides a way to track its progress (at the moment, modulo any issues with bugs.opensolaris.org!) Please provide as many details as you can provide including the know chipsets, PCI ids, etc. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Netgear FA311 NIC @ CompUSA
W. Wayne Liauh wrote: For those who have been trying to explore a move from Linux to Solaris, the most frustrating problem (plse note I didn't say one of . . .) is the inability to make NIC work under Solaris. Sun's developers seem determined to exclude ALL of those drivers for NICs that are embedded in AMD-based motherboards. (Strangely enough, most OpenSolaris-derivatives, including NexentaOS and BeleniX, have no problem with those cheap/free but essentially ubiquitous NICs.) James McPherson wrote: That's quite a claim to make. I would dearly love to know on what evidence you base the claim about Sun's engineers. Which devices in particular are you bitter about? ... BTW, which driver are you using for this card? That's the sort of info which will most definitely help others. We run an OpenSuSE/OpenSolaris/OpenOffice study group here in Honolulu and have a dozen or so all sorts of AMD-based PCs in our lab. To the best of my memory, all our Athlon64-based motherboards come with on-board gigabit Marvell NICs. Solaris HCL does show quite a number of on-board Marvell Yukon drivers, but all but one are 32-bit. Unless luck strikes, which never happened to any of our Athlon64 PCs, Solaris means an extra effort to buy and install an external NIC. Did you check the SysKonnect website? They're the company that actually provides the drivers (SK*) which are presently integrated with Solaris. While I was checking their site I got this link http://www.syskonnect.de/e_en/support/driver_searchresults.html?navanchor=term=bs.SUN_Solaris+produkt.SK-9843V2.0produkt=produkt.SK-9843V2.0typ=system=bs.SUN_Solaris which does have a link to the 64bit x64 driver skge I use this driver myself, with a Gigabyte K8NS-Pro motherboard. It really was not hard to find. All things considered, we feel that both Solaris10u2 (JDS 3) and Solaris Express (Gnome 2.14) provide a desktop environment that appear to be best suited as the Microsoft Windows replacement for businesses including courts and other government offices. However, intentionally or not, failure to provide drivers for perhaps some of the most prevalent NICs makes it difficult to bring up this subject. That's a bit of a back down from your previous assertion of malice on the part of Sun's engineers. If you're going to make claims like you did earlier, provide the evidence to back it up or don't make the assertion. James C. McPherson ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Super-Smack on Solaris 10 SPARC
Eric Boutilier wrote: Frank -- In case this helps... http://blogs.sun.com/dp/entry/smacking_super_smack_into_shape ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Start with running mkheaders which will be in your path somewhere like path-to-base-gcc-install/lib/gcc/platform-os/install-tools/ or path-to-base-gcc-install/libexec/gcc/platform-os/install-tools/ depending on how your gcc was built. This should fix your problem with ctid_t Tony Bourke integrated the changes outlined by Dan Price above into the super-smack-1.3 release. I can't remember for certain, but it seems like there may have still been a problem with yacc that I had to comment a couple of lines from. I was building on a T2000, though. -Andy ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Netgear FA311 NIC @ CompUSA
That's a bit of a back down from your previous assertion of malice on the part of Sun's engineers. If you're going to make claims like you did earlier, provide the evidence to back it up or don't make the assertion. James C. McPherson ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Read my original title, I did not back down from nothing! If you are interested in escalating the fight, I don't have any interest nor the time to entertain you. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
