Re: [osol-discuss] Network based AI installation
On 02/ 9/11 03:28 PM, Kartik Vashishta wrote: With network based AI install it appears that I can only assign DHCP IP addresses to the AI client, is this true - do I have to later after the install go and make the entry static. Is there any way to make a static IP assignment during the network AI install? I would expect that your question is answered by http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/820-6566/syscfg-1/index.html, but perhaps not since you didn't specify what release you're running. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Express and FlashArchives
On 12/15/10 07:39 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: We use Flash Archives to recover servers for DR. I have noticed that the flar script is nolonger included and never worked with zfs. Flash Recovery was a cornerstone of production Solaris and one of the keys to its success in the business world. What if anything exists to give the same functionality for Disaster Recovery of the OS residing on zfs? Thanks Flash archives are, as you see, not a feature at S11 Express. For now, you'd have to use some sort of backup product. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] iSCSI boot supported on Solaris 11 Express??
On 11/17/10 01:43 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi-- I believe the supported method is by using the auto install features. I don't know if you could exit the text-mode installer to make sure the iSCSI target is available, and then jump back in. Someone from the install team should comment... That is the recommendation, whether you're using GUI or text installer. Make the target available in the booted environment and it should be seen by the installer. Dave Thanks, Cindy On 11/17/10 11:05, carlopmart wrote: On 11/17/2010 07:00 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi-- Yes, see the automated installer guide, here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-6566/iediskrepo?l=ena=view Example 4�6 Specifying an iSCSI Target Thanks, Cindy Thanks Cindy, but do I need to do this using automated installer?? Is not possible to install on an iSCSI disk using normal text installer only? Thanks. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 11 Express is out
On 11/15/10 04:20 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: Well you know some of us home users aren't going to be happy. *Supported on sun4v and sun4u based systems with OBP (Open Boot PROM) level 4.17 or higher. $ uname -a;prtdiag -v|tail -2 SunOS paradox 5.11 snv_97 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000 OBP 4.16.4 2004/12/18 05:18 POST 4.16.3 2004/11/05 20:02 ...so I suppose I have to wait for the source release, and for someone (or do it myself - not likely) to do something about that restriction. Ouch. That's the latest OBP firmware for that hardware, AFAIK; and the Sun Blade 1000, 2000, Sun Fire 280R, and Netra 20 would all be affected. Ironically, my Sun Blade 100 (a wimp by comparison) has 4.17.1, so it's ok. The one I don't want to upgrade, I can, and the good one is orphaned. Blech. It's likely that it will work for you if you install from the text installer media, but automated installation requires that level of OBP. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/22/10 05:56 PM, Jason wrote: At a previous job most of their Sparc systems were upgraded from Solaris 2.6-8-10 via live upgrade. Obviously new systems got the latest standard, and not every system that went from 2.6-8 was still around to do the 8-10 upgrade, but at one point we had around 1200 sparc systems (all servers, no desktops) that we maintained in our department (with three other groups of similar size). The reduced downtime of the update was _critical_ in allowing this to happen (otherwise the business would force us to run ancient versions forever). This was probably one of the few things that kept them from tossing Sun out the door completely (which at one point they were trying to do) -- since they were obsessed with system availability (to a sometimes absurd extent), it provide a very distinct advantage over the AIX and HP-UX systems they had. I suspect they would be quite disappointed (to put it mildly) if there is no way to do something similar (at least an installer that can run in an older version to lay down the bits in unused space). As Bart said, most don't do this, though I am aware of at least one customer who does (probably the same one, based on your description). Honestly, they're doing what we would have recommended for everyone but didn't work hard enough to get widely accepted. I'm sure we'll work with them to find an acceptable solution to their needs, but it's more likely to be a special case, not a general one. Dave Since the hardware, OS versions (including patches), as well as other software was tested and controlled rather carefully, we had very few problems with this. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote: On 07/23/10 06:44 AM, Bart Smaalders wrote: On 07/21/10 15:25, Ian Collins wrote: If Solaris Next is to be IPS based, I really really hope we will see a viable upgrade path. The lack of one is the biggest hurdle to IPS adoption. In general, upgrading from UFS root w/ svr4 packages to ZFS root w/ IPS is a very difficult problem. While we can imagine cases in which we could be successful, there are a host of situations which are not readily addressable. Add to this the fact that most of Sun ^H^H^HOracle's Solaris customers generally do NOT upgrade from one release to the next, because of the reproducibility problem - production machine configurations need to be readily reproducible, and upgrading an existing S10 patched OS is not the best way of doing this. I can see that's probably true. I only ever upgraded one production box from Solaris 9 to 10 and that was a very simple configuration. Nearly all of the other production Solaris 9 boxes I've replaced have been migration for their services to Solaris 10 zones. The small remainder have been imported to branded zones. So I guess Robert is right, a branded zone is one option! I do wonder how much of a selling point (to keep people on Solaris) the ability to upgrade was, even it wasn't used? We anticipate developing and sharing migration strategies and tools, but a traditional upgrade in place DVD approach is not likely to occur. That's good. The traditional upgrade in place DVD approach has probably reached the end of the line with the increasing use of virtualisation. Treating a system (or zone) as a service and looking at how to migrate that is better approach. -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The nearest thing to (forthcoming) news
On 07/ 9/10 09:09 AM, Calum Benson wrote: On 9 Jul 2010, at 12:25, Simon Phipps wrote: On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:49, Chris Ridd wrote: On 9 Jul 2010, at 03:39, John Plocher wrote: It might be worth going just to find out who the current head of Oracle Solaris development really is; it'll certainly be more than the OGB has been able to find out all year... Might it be Stephen Hahn or Tim Marsland or Bill Franklin or Vincent Murphy or Greg Lavender or someone completely new? According to his blog, Stephen's no longer at Sun/Oracle. http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/penultimate I don't think any of the people John named are still at Oracle. Vincent's still at Oracle (but he's not 'head of Oracle Solaris development', and I don't know who's supposed to be giving that presentation at OOW either...) The participants for panels like this usually aren't sorted out this far in advance. At least someone was thinking enough to reserve the slot so we can populate it later :-) Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OSOL2010.03
On 05/17/10 09:18 PM, jay krik wrote: ... So question, DID I do something wrong in gpart that I could not do a non destructive resize? Why is ZFS format blanked out? GParted cannot resize a ZFS pool non-destructively. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ZFS encryption mentioned in two different books
On 04/ 9/10 01:28 PM, Peter Pauly wrote: Why do OpenSolaris Bible and Pro OpenSolaris both mention that zfs has encryption? I was under the impression that it has not yet been included in the shipping code. I've downloaded build 134 and can find no evidence that zfs has encryption capability, but I'm no expert either. At the time I wrote that chapter in OpenSolaris Bible, we thought ZFS encryption would be out within a few months and felt that it was worth providing a couple of paragraphs on it. But, the beginning of the section notes that it wasn't yet included, and unfortunately it still isn't. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] A new edition of the OpenSolaris Bible likely?
On 03/21/10 12:40 PM, Matthew Nawrocki wrote: Hi! Given the rate at which OpenSolaris is changing in terms of new features and tweaks to the OS as well as the recent closure of SXCE, will a new 2nd edition of the OpenSolaris Bible be a possibility? Matt As of right now we do not have an updated edition in the works. Nick, Jerry and I have been collecting content on the differences since publishing to offer on a companion website in the interim, but that's been proceeding pretty slowly. When we have something presentable we'll be sure to announce it widely. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Failsafe boot for Opensolaris 2009.06 ?
On 02/15/10 01:53 AM, Hugh McIntyre wrote: Never mind. The immediate problem is fixed. Although it would be useful to know if failsafe boot is possible in future. See bug 1856. http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1856 Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Zone API
On 02/ 3/10 06:49 PM, Paul Kölle wrote: Am 03.02.2010 16:32, schrieb Gopi Desaboyina: for zone automation all you need to use is zonecfg,zoneadm and zfs for cloning,sysidcfg file . there is a script for zone automation in bigadmin. I don't think if we've any Perl Modules for zones. IOW: There is no API (same as with SMF,pkg,etc.). SMF has a very extensive API. See libscf(3LIB). Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] build 130 nonsense
On 01/ 5/10 06:12 AM, andrew wrote: On Jan 3, 2010, at 6:53 AM, andrew wrote: On 01/ 1/10 10:36 AM, andrew wrote: Sorry - my mistake. Still looking for ability to install from local files though. ;-) You can do that now as long as you're willing to run a depot server (which is a very light-weight easy to start/run process). However, if you're wanting to install from files without running a depot server, that's still work in progress. Thanks for the info. However, I am still surprised that there is no ability to install from local files as we approach for 4th release. On the face of it, it would seem an easy thing to add. I guess if I really needed it I could add it myself. It isn't as trivial to add it as it might seem at first glance, which is why it didn't get done for this release. It was originally planned, but there has simply been been too much else needed for this release (2010.x). There was significant foundational or higher priority work that had to be done first. The pkg(5) project is now at a point where new subsystems require significant planning and analysis. An on-disk format is something that once added has to remain relatively stable. As such, any formal introduction of it has been purposefully delayed to ensure that there is as little pain as possible. Please remember that the needs of the pkg(5) system are primarily driven by what is required to deliver OpenSolaris and the project is still in the process of addressing user needs. I haven't looked at the code but I was kind of assuming that I wouldn't need to implement an on-disk format - just replace code to suck files off the network with code to fetch them off disk. However, I have absolutely no knowledge of how any of it actually works. ;-) Thank you for the clarification about what stage the development of IPS is at. I will just add that we have built experimental media that included a repository and hacked up an installer that could install from that repository. The performance was not usable (6+ hour install times, as I recall), because the performance of random access to files (which is what happens in reading from the repository) on stream-oriented media like DVD's is hideously bad. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Some Why?-Questions
Volker A. Brandt wrote: ... But this is all water under the bridge. I would like to see a sample package that delivers an SMF service that does some arbitrary post-install task (like configuring and starting Sybase :-) and then removes the SMF service from the system. That's what people need, not theoretical discussions over Python ./. Perl ./. C. Yes, it's on my ToDo list... it's not *that* hard. The only problem is that lacking a Sun-endorsed sample, people will reinvent hundreds of differently-shaped wheels. As we get closer towards Solaris Next, we recognize that samples, how-to's, and so on are requirements and fully expect to provide a lot of transition aids such as that. Contributions from users such as yourself would be very helpful. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] any work on bug ID 6807184
Anon Y Mous wrote: ... On a different note I don't know why Sun doesn't just give Masayuki Murayama core device driver contributor status so that he can freely work on fixing bugs in NIC drivers without having to run through the whole sponsorship obstacle course. If you look at how many Solaris device drivers he has written over the years, I think he has earned the it. All contributions by non-Sun employees have to go that route, there isn't a special classification available to give him, however well Murayama may have earned it. However, regular contributors do tend to end up with ongoing relationships with sponsors who get them in efficiently and make the sponsorship avenue not onerous. We'd need to advance the external gate development process further to streamline it any further, I believe. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Is the default 512MB to small for swap
Andrew Watkins wrote: I am just wondering if the default lower limit should be increased from 512MB when installed on small memory machines and depending on size of disk! The reason is I just tried a image-update of OpenSolaris 2009.06 to the latest dev release 127 and had the following message: pkg: There is not enough memory to complete the requested operation. At least 239MB of virtual memory was in use by this command before it ran out of memory. The machine has 1Gig of memory (which I know is small these days) and the default swap which was 512MB. I was logged in remotely so was not running the gnome desktop on the machine but did have CIFS enabled (idmap size=815M, RSS=161M) QUOTE: The swap volume size that is created during an initial installation is based on 1/2 the size of physical memory, but is generally in the 512 Mbyte to 2 Gbyte range. from opensolaris.org It would be useful to file a bug capturing your experience so that we can consider whether a change in the algorithm is required. Memory requirements for image-update have fluctuated as pkg work has happened and will likely change a lot once the build 128 pkg implementation is used since the solver changed. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Still confused about SCXE versus OpenSolaris 2010.02 Developer Builds
Rainer Orth wrote: Glynn Foster glynn.fos...@sun.com writes: 2. If a method exists to upgrade from SCXE to Opensolaris A method exists, but isn't yet supported. http://blogs.sun.com/edp/entry/moving_from_nevada_and_live (and other google searches) will help. I've tried that recently with some success, although I've found a couple of problematic issues. I'll report them at bugs.opensolaris.org or defect.opensolaris.org if they are generic or Indiana specific. I'll probably write up my experiences, but am uncertain about the best audience: caiman-discuss, pkg-discuss, indiana-discuss? Unfortunately, this isn't an upgrade per se, but rather a Live Install as has long been requested for LU: a fresh installation of Indiana into a new BE in an existing SX:CE installation. I understand that there are plans for something like this for the planned Indiana-based Enterprise Solaris 11 (or whatever). Is this already being talked about publicly? It's on the roadmap. No estimate for delivery yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Extended partition install
Bob Palowoda wrote: Now that extended partitions are supported via PSARC/2006/379 which was integrated in build 119 are their plans to have the installer allowed to install on an extended partition. Note I don't think the arc case 2006/379 is public because it may have some proprietary information about extended partitions maybe. So it's not known if the installer in sxce or opensolaris should support it. What levels of support are offered with extended partitions? Other than fdisk. As usual with installer questions, a little poking around in the Caiman project will answer your question, but to be explicit: work is needed in the installers to recognize and use extended partitions, and it's in progress for OpenSolaris. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OT: Re: Oracle 10g on OpenSolaris (Solaris 5.11)
Ghee Teo wrote: ... Having a great number for OpenSolaris 200x is GREAT for the community! However, even if the OpenSolaris 200x numbers are order of magnitude more than SXCE, it may or may not reflect that the ISV are tuned in to adapt the new paradigm as the numbers alone do not contain sufficient information to draw the conclusion per se. ISV education and recruitment is something that's been ramping up continuously as OpenSolaris has progressed. We're quite confident of resolving that problem before Solaris Next. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans
Octave Orgeron wrote: Hi Dave, This sound very interesting, especially for people such as my self that specialize in virtualization. LDoms presents a wide selection of choices on how to replicate a guest domain, image files, volumes, ZFS, etc. And containers obviously have the ZFS clone feature. I agree that flash archives, while useful, are rather cumbersome. Jumpstart can be powerful when extended properly, but again it adds a lot of up-front complexity and requires specialized knowledge that not all SA's have. There are some things I do like about AI, but it definitely needs some more work. One thing that would be interesting is some mechanism for configuring, securing, and customizing AI installs. Some mechanism for creating a configuration snapshot (things like SMF service settings, /etc conf files, security settings, etc.) that could be used for AI installs, auditing installed systems against, and remediation. Something like that would be useful for enterprises, cloud environments, and even those who want to build appliances. Octave, we'd welcome additional RFE's on AI features. The overall plan for configuring services primarily involves leveraging the recent extension to SMF profiles that allows customization of any property value, not just the enabled/disabled state. We're starting to work with a variety of teams to migrate items that were formerly expressed in the sysidcfg mechanism to this mechanism, and other components will be encouraged to move to this design as well. There's a lot to be done, to be sure, but this direction should enable you as an administrator to assert a great deal more control over system configuration in your deployments with far less labor than was required in the past. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans
Octave Orgeron wrote: With the big diff being that Amazon probably does not use AI to create new instances. They probably just clone a pre-made image. A little different from a typical environment. I'd be very surprised if they were using AI to deploy each image. I'd also be surprised if they used Jumpstart for Solaris 10 images, were they offering them. Cloud providers of virtual instances tend to use custom replication techniques exploiting their underlying infrastructure and only use the OS tools like AI or Jumpstart or Kickstart to generate their master images - even S10 flash archive-type replication is too cumbersome for those environments. We'll be providing a lot more tooling to support these things: a virtual machine construction extension to the Distribution Constructor is already in progress, and later on we'll be providing various image-replication extensions to the Automated Installer. Dave *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com E-Mail: unixcons...@yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* - Original Message From: Shawn Walker swal...@opensolaris.org To: b...@mirrorshades.net Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:45:56 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans Bryan Allen wrote: +-- | On 2009-08-11 14:30:50, Shawn Walker wrote: | | Peter Tribble wrote: | If there was a Solaris 11 based on SXCE released, I would just roll | it out and stand a good chance of using its strengths to increase its | usage. Gain the new technologies, easy to deploy, compatible with | both the software and administrative frameworks we already have. | With OpenSolaris, it's frankly not ready for testing let alone deployment. | | I've been using OpenSolaris 200x releases as my day-to-day desktop since | developer preview 1 and have not used SXCE since then. It also has | worked well on two different latpops (both very new). | | It all depends on what your deployment and usage requirements are. Yes, it does. And the majorty of people relating their ambivalence about pushing OpenSolaris into production in the near future are talking about servers. In our datacenters. And convincing our bosses that it's a good idea to so do. The whole tone of this thread are sysadmins being wary of unproven change. We don't care if it runs on your laptop. Are you being disingenuous on purpose or just not paying attention? I'm paying attention, but everyone has their own interpretation of statements made. Regardless, I feel it is perfectly valid to point out that it is useable on laptops and workstations. In addition, I also believe that OpenSolaris in its current state is usable in a datacenter depending on your usage and deployment requirements. For example, Amazon EC3's service offers OpenSolaris images, which obviously run in a datacenter. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans
Ian Collins wrote: Dave Miner wrote: - No clear method of upgrade from Solaris - OpenSolaris There will be some upgrade options provided for Solaris 10 - Solaris Next, but there are no plans to do so for OpenSolaris yet. How about SXCE - OpenSolaris? There are a lot of us using SXCE on systems we'd rather not destroy. This would give any upgrade tool a good workout before it hits production servers. We're going to allow for side-by-side installation with S10 (and SXCE), so you won't have to do the complete wipe that is required right now to put in OpenSolaris. One of the main upgrade options is p2v into a Solaris 10 container, and that obviously doesn't apply to SXCE. Other transition tools are being considered, but there's nothing imminent and so the likelihood of substantial testing of anything using SXCE is low. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans
Andrew Watkins wrote: I think this is a great shame since OpenSolaris Indiana 2009.06 is not ready to replace Solaris. I think many users are using SXCE since they want the new features of OpenSolaris, but Indiana is not ready for that job. Here is the reasons including my real bugbear! - Automated Install (ONLY works with certain DHCP servers) I use SXCE on many desktops and use Network JumpStart and/or a DVD Jumpstart image for this, since Jumpstart SXCE/Solaris offers many ways to install a image. AI only offers one way and if you have a non compatible DHCP (Microsoft) then I can not install Indiana That should not be true, as there is nothing proprietary that we're doing with the Solaris DHCP server to enable AI installation. If you can actually prove the above statement, then please file a bug. You undoubtedly need to do some manual configuration of the MS DHCP server to make it work, and I will agree that we haven't documented what that might be, but that's something the community could help with and contribute to the documentation effort. We *will* be supporting the ISC DHCP server in a future release. - No DVD image of OpenSolaris Indiana I know it is on the way but! What is the problem you are trying to solve with a DVD image? - No text Console install process I am not talking about tty As noted in other posts, this is in development and will be ready for the next OpenSolaris release; probably will be in development builds about the time that SXCE is discontinued. - Sparse zones I'd encourage engaging with the Zones community to sort out what the future of this will be. - No clear method of upgrade from Solaris - OpenSolaris There will be some upgrade options provided for Solaris 10 - Solaris Next, but there are no plans to do so for OpenSolaris yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE end-of-life plans
Mark Martin wrote: ... What would it take to document the recipe for building SXCE, such that interested /external/ community members who do not share Sun's marketing agenda might have a shot at continuing this potentially valuable distribution? The process is: - Collect SVR4 packages plus some manually filled-out forms from consolidations into a common area (how each consolidation builds is a detail, though they are to use a common build environment). There is proprietary tooling for this. - Munge data from manual forms into data used by the installer for upgrade calculations - Run a closed tool that generates the various SXCE images - Test and hope it all works. As we've seen lately, it doesn't always work. That's about as detailed as we're inclined to get about it. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Anyone successfully boot OpenSolaris on Toshiba A605 notebook ?
Kewl Eugene wrote: Maybe I'm doing it wrong. What I did was 1) Boot the OpenSolaris 2009.06 media I got at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention a couple of weeks ago on my HP s3123w Amd64 Desktop. 2) Installed OpenSolaris onto a Sandisk 4GB USB Drive 3) Tested the Sandisk USB drive and it successfully booted from USB on the HP s3123w 4) Tried the USB drive with my Fujistu P8010 and Dell 15n/1545 and it failed 5) Tried the USB drive with the Toshina A605-P210 and it failed. This will fail because the device path to the root file system will be different on each system than it was on the system where you did the install (a ZFS boot limitation we're hoping to correct in the future). You'll need to use the live CD itself, or a live USB image (available as a download, though you need to run OpenSolaris or Windows to correctly image it to the USB drive) to be able to test against a variety of machines. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] next stabilization release date
Erast wrote: Hi Guys, trying to analyze this link: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/ I see the b111 was the last one marked as stabilization build. Do we have a plan set for the next OpenSolaris stabilization build yet? There isn't one set yet. If so, is it possible to keep this page updated? The ON gatekeepers are usually quite good about updating that once the schedules have been set. In this case, it's as accurate as can be. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Full Root? - I think Not
Rick S. wrote: Hi all. I come from the Real Solaris world, been working with Solaris 10 for about 3 years now, and decided to give OpenSoalaris a place on my home server vice Soalris 10 x86. I think I'm missing something here, on Solaris 10 when I create a 'full' root zone, it copies over 100,000's of files, and take up about 4GB. I try that in Opensolaris and it copies over 72 MB WTF? So, I did the sysid cfg and logged in and started to compile some stuff, only to note that there is ton's of stuff missing. X11 libraries, etc... Is this the default behaviour of Opensolaris, a 'full' root really means. 1/10 of the OS installed? The ipkg zones on OpenSolaris are not at all the same as the native zones on Solaris 10; at present they are a very basic OS instance which can then be added to for your specific purpose. I'd suggest discussion on zones-discuss, where the engineers are more likely to be found, and they'll perhaps be able to fill you in on the rest of their plans in developing this further. Note that the transfer sizes displayed by pkg are compressed size, so you actually got closer to 150 MB of executables and so on, which is more accurate for comparison purposes vs. the old native zones. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris Bible: Buy it!
Brian Cameron wrote: Dave: Specifically in the case of partitioning, I think we chose not to emphasize this as strongly, as ZFS makes it a far less interesting topic in general; you really want to just be giving it whole disks and making your life simpler. Perhaps that's being a little too optimistic about ZFS for some :-) For those OpenSolaris desktop users out there, figuring out how to set up OpenSolaris in multi-partition environments where you may have Linux, OpenSolaris, Windows, etc. on the same machine is complicated. Agreed that it is. I'd bet that most people who install OpenSolaris as a desktop platform wouldn't want to dedicate their laptop's entire disk to a single OS. The reality at this point is that OpenSolaris lacks the tools to really do any sort of multi-install partitioning effectively (inclusion of parted/gparted will improve this situation a lot). As the book is aimed primarily at those with a Linux background, in most cases they will have already had to confront this issue, and so a basic outline of what to do and a reminder of where to find the tools is where we decided to stop after a few pages on the topic. A choice that is certainly arguable, of course. As I said, the feedback will be noted for future editions, should there be any. Ultimately, virtualization software makes this particular topic a lot less interesting, which is much the better! Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris Bible: Buy it!
Harry, thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback. A couple of comments in-line below. Harry Putnam wrote: Emmanuel De Paepe emmanuel_depa...@yahoo.com writes: Idem over here. I paid it only 28.5 Euro, which is an excellent price if you see the '50 US dollar' on the back of the cover. The only issue is the quality of the book. I was surprised that Wiley uses such low quality phone book paper. This is a big contrast compared to all my other Wiley (semiconductor) technical books. I too see poor quality in paper... and apparently the printing too. It appears the printer was low on ink. Nothing is really crisp. As authors, we had no control over the printing process or paper quality; it seems to be similar to the other titles in the Bible series that I have samples of, so I'd say it's consistent, anyway. We can bring it up with Wiley for future printings, I guess, though I'm doubtful it would make any difference. In their defense, we did deliver a bit more material than was originally specified, but they bent over backwards to put it all in. Regarding the contents, I certainly can recommend this book. It's easy to read and I was surprised to see the number of commands I have never heard of. Commands which are otherwise well hidden in the man pages. I am beginning to disagree about contents too. I'm way low on the skill level in unix or Solaris but have run unix or unix like OS for over 10 yrs, mostly linux but with several months experience with 2 of the BSDs (open and free) and at least 2 mnths with early offerings from solaris... somwhere around 200[03]. As I recall you paid something like $40 for a DVD with a x86 Solaris OS, the OS was free but the processing cost (It may have been less, but $40 sticks in my mind). I see what could be described as a `thin' coverage of many things. [remainder ellided] We appreciate the feedback on topics you think deserve deeper coverage. The scope of the book is very broad, and that breadth definitely compromises depth. I would think that in every subject area we could have gone much deeper; the resources section provided with each chapter is really designed to direct you to materials, such as the Sun product documentation, that offer greater depth. Ultimately, I expect the book to be more satisfying to those who are new(er) to OpenSolaris, not users or administrators with long Solaris experience, though I think it can serve as a handy reference to the latter for parts of the system that they are less frequently in contact with. Specifically in the case of partitioning, I think we chose not to emphasize this as strongly, as ZFS makes it a far less interesting topic in general; you really want to just be giving it whole disks and making your life simpler. Perhaps that's being a little too optimistic about ZFS for some :-) We'll archive your feedback, as well as any others offered, for consideration should there be a second edition. Feel free to drop any of us a note, or post here, with further thoughts on what would make a better book for you. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris Bible: Buy it!
Luke, thanks so much for the positive feedback. Royalty checks are nice, but having the time I spent prove useful to people means a lot more to me. I'm guessing Nick and Jerry would say the same thing. And, by the way, if you have found technical errors, please do let us know; if there's ever a second edition, we'll sure try to get them fixed. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Joerg Schilling wrote: Dave Miner dave.mi...@sun.com wrote: My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with modifications fed back upstream, so that we get maximum leverage going The utilities in question do not support Linux specific features. Why do you believe you will be able to feed back such enhancements for Solaris to the upstream? Because I'm an optimist? There's trying and failing, and then there's failing to try. I won't speculate on why the Linux distributors have made the choices they have since I'm uninformed there, but the case of ACL's which are standardized in NFSv4 would seem to be less a matter of OS-specific features than lacking support for standards. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Joerg Schilling wrote: ... I would prefer if the user account installation could ask during OS install whether the user like to have a UNIX or a Linux profile and inform people that the GNU profile (as known fro Linux) could not support all features of the UNIX programs. Note that Solaris _has_ an own userland while Linux uses the GNU userland that does not even implement Linux specific features. We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've chosen the default which makes the most sense for the most users, just as with every other default. The solution here is to fix the utilities. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Brian Smith wrote: Dave Miner wrote: We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've chosen the default which makes the most sense for the most users, just as with every other default. The solution here is to fix the utilities. What is the strategy to fix the utilities? Will the GNU utilities be modified to be supersets of their Solaris counterparts? What is the strategy for the cases where the default behavior is different between the Solaris version and the GNU version (and/or when the GNU version is non-POSIX by default, by design) like tar and make? My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with modifications fed back upstream, so that we get maximum leverage going forward. Maintaining separate versions is a cost that Sun is unlikely to be able to continue to justify long-term. But it's only my opinion, not a decision. What is the plan for the default path in Solaris 11? Will it be like Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris? Because, I think there are a lot of OpenSolaris users like me who would like to see as much compatibility between OpenSolaris and whatever ends up in Solaris 11, as much as possible. In particular, the defaults for OpenSolaris and Solaris 11 should be the same, at the very least (and, AFAICT, that means they have to be the same as in Solaris 10, if I understand the compatibility guarantee). Past compatibility guarantees certainly do not require that things such as a default user PATH value must be carried forward to subsequent releases; the binary compatibility offered with Solaris has always been much narrower than that. We've not yet made (and I won't make here, because it's not my place to do so) any statements about what compatibility there will be between OpenSolaris and any other product, including a hypothetical Solaris 11. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] why gnu chmod in os2008.11?
Dennis Clarke wrote: Brian Smith wrote: Dave Miner wrote: We're not going to do that in the installer, as it's a question too subtle for explanation there, and it isn't something that is absolutely necessary to get the system up and running. For OpenSolaris, we've chosen the default which makes the most sense for the most users, just as with every other default. The solution here is to fix the utilities. What is the strategy to fix the utilities? Will the GNU utilities be modified to be supersets of their Solaris counterparts? What is the strategy for the cases where the default behavior is different between the Solaris version and the GNU version (and/or when the GNU version is non-POSIX by default, by design) like tar and make? My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with modifications fed back upstream ... snip Sometimes that doesn't work. GRUB is a good example. I don't know whether GRUB is a good example, as I'm not up on whether we've tried to send anything back upstream. But if they can't go upstream, you make a decision whether your mods are worth the very real costs of maintaining a branch. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The future of the IPS system
Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Oct 2008, at 13:11, Duncan Paterson wrote: What are the chances that this will one day rival apt for selection, frequency of updates and speed. It will happen a lot quicker once we have repositories in place to which everyone can contribute packages. I get the feeling that'll be a pretty high priority once 2008.11 is out the door, and with a bit of luck it'll be in full swing in time for the 2009.04 release. Not necessary, because by then users can do the same thing in a better way (more sophisticated, but complexity encapsulated from users) via the then available conary-based version of Indiana. Which is fine, but just because you consider it unnecessary doesn't mean it isn't going to happen :) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 977 Oh, ditto. But think twice: If Sun likes to pay tons of money for re-inventing the wheel only to come into a position, where they can say we made this, it is our little kindergarden invention, rather than having licensed rPath's conary in the first place (which is in busy development since 2004), then go ahead and waste more TIME, more MANPOWER, more MONEY and more other RESOURCES. I doubt your primary interest is to HELP CUSTOMERS increase their PRODUCTIVITY. Sigh. Martin, this is becoming tedious. I think all of us involved with packaging acknowledge that Conary has a fine product, but it didn't meet the requirements that we had identified for Sun's businesses. We wish you well in packaging up your distro. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The future of the IPS system
Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dave Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Oct 2008, at 13:11, Duncan Paterson wrote: What are the chances that this will one day rival apt for selection, frequency of updates and speed. It will happen a lot quicker once we have repositories in place to which everyone can contribute packages. I get the feeling that'll be a pretty high priority once 2008.11 is out the door, and with a bit of luck it'll be in full swing in time for the 2009.04 release. Not necessary, because by then users can do the same thing in a better way (more sophisticated, but complexity encapsulated from users) via the then available conary-based version of Indiana. Which is fine, but just because you consider it unnecessary doesn't mean it isn't going to happen :) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 977 Oh, ditto. But think twice: If Sun likes to pay tons of money for re-inventing the wheel only to come into a position, where they can say we made this, it is our little kindergarden invention, rather than having licensed rPath's conary in the first place (which is in busy development since 2004), then go ahead and waste more TIME, more MANPOWER, more MONEY and more other RESOURCES. I doubt your primary interest is to HELP CUSTOMERS increase their PRODUCTIVITY. Sigh. Martin, this is becoming tedious. I think all of us involved with packaging acknowledge that Conary has a fine product, but it didn't meet the requirements that we had identified for Sun's businesses. We wish you well in packaging up your distro. Dave Hi Dave, ok ok. But _which_ requirements didn't it meet? Did anybody ever tell me (precisely) ? I'm still waiting for a detailed answer other than for (internal reasons) that we had identified for Sun's businesses. Thoughts? I believe that Stephen answered this at one point in as much detail as he cared to get into, but perhaps he'll decide to follow up. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The future of the IPS system
Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Dave Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dave Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Calum Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Oct 2008, at 13:11, Duncan Paterson wrote: What are the chances that this will one day rival apt for selection, frequency of updates and speed. It will happen a lot quicker once we have repositories in place to which everyone can contribute packages. I get the feeling that'll be a pretty high priority once 2008.11 is out the door, and with a bit of luck it'll be in full swing in time for the 2009.04 release. Not necessary, because by then users can do the same thing in a better way (more sophisticated, but complexity encapsulated from users) via the then available conary-based version of Indiana. Which is fine, but just because you consider it unnecessary doesn't mean it isn't going to happen :) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 977 Oh, ditto. But think twice: If Sun likes to pay tons of money for re-inventing the wheel only to come into a position, where they can say we made this, it is our little kindergarden invention, rather than having licensed rPath's conary in the first place (which is in busy development since 2004), then go ahead and waste more TIME, more MANPOWER, more MONEY and more other RESOURCES. I doubt your primary interest is to HELP CUSTOMERS increase their PRODUCTIVITY. Sigh. Martin, this is becoming tedious. I think all of us involved with packaging acknowledge that Conary has a fine product, but it didn't meet the requirements that we had identified for Sun's businesses. We wish you well in packaging up your distro. Dave Hi Dave, ok ok. But _which_ requirements didn't it meet? Did anybody ever tell me (precisely) ? I'm still waiting for a detailed answer other than for (internal reasons) that we had identified for Sun's businesses. Thoughts? I believe that Stephen answered this at one point in as much detail as he cared to get into, but perhaps he'll decide to follow up. Dave Not really, Dr. Hahn rather worked around them, than actually answering them. But Dave, I don't like to fight against you. Your distro is kicking and running now, it is clear that you won't go back anymore. All that we from our side (can and) will do, is to build and maintain a 3rd-party (external) version of Indiana (11/08, 04/09 and ongoing) which uses conary as primary pkg-management system, instead of IPS. This is all we can influence. And all we are going to attemt to influence. I respect your IPS work. But it would not have been necessary to re-invent wheels
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_98 iso
Dave Uhring wrote: I downloaded the snv_98 iso, burned it to DVD (it wouldn't fit on a CD), The osol-0811-98-global.iso is ~661 MB in size. I'm sure than any packages it may be missing can be added after installation. There are no missing packages; the difference is that the global iso uses a different compression algorithm, allowing more language packages to be packed on the image, but it's slower booting and installing. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris osol-0811-96
Thommy M. Malmström wrote: Dan Maslowski wrote: OpenSolars 2008.11 is the follow on to OpenSolaris 2008.05. The contents, well, that is still being worked... Dan http://blogs.sun.com/danmas http://blogs.sun.com/storage Well, that I know, but that was not what was announced. As it's not November yet, there can be no 2008.11 version yet, or? So, is 0811-96 the working copy of what will become 2008.11 (probably based on nv_b96)? Yes. And, if so, what differs from SXCE-b96??? The same things that differ between any other SXCE and OpenSolaris build: installation, packaging, media format, etc. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Error when installing OpenSolaris 2008.5 as Xen DomU
Graeme West wrote: Hi there, I've been attempting to install OpenSolaris 2008.5 as a fully virtualised guest on a CentOS 5.2 Xen host. When I boot the OpenSolaris DomU for the first time, I get the blue screen allowing me to pick either the OpenSolaris installer or the text mode installer, but after that the installation hangs. It gets as far as: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_86 32-bit Copyright 1983-2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Hostname: opensolaris Remounting root read/write Probing for device nodes... I'm using the GUI guest OS installer in virt-manager. Here is my setup for the VM: Mode: Full virtualisation (64-bit) Disk: 32GB flat file RAM: 2GB Start-up RAM: 2GB VCPUs: 8 (the machine has 8 real CPUs) OS install image: os200805.iso I suspect that this could be something to do with the OpenSolaris installer starting in 32-bit mode. I didn't get the option to pick between 32 and 64 bit modes for the VM when running through the install setup. Is this the problem, and is there a way to force OpenSolaris to start the install CD in 64-bit mode? This should just work, bug 315 (defect.opensolaris.org) was fixed precisely to support running as a domU, but perhaps there's something different with the CentOS host implementation that reflects a different device setup. The live CD boot is set up to automatically select 64-bit if the platform reports that it is 64-bit capable. You can try to force it by editing the GRUB entries (replace $ISADIR with amd64) but that's likely to fail if GRUB's auto-detection of the platform didn't work. You could also try the build 93 development ISO as OS changes since 2008.05 may allow it to just work. Filing a bug at defect.opensolaris.org (distribution/opensolaris/livecd) would be helpful. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] zfs: move and migrate installation locally?
Kristian Rink wrote: Dave Miner schrieb: Theoretically, yes, but since OpenSolaris can't use multiple fdisk partitions on the same disk, your options are fairly limited. Thanks for your comments on that... so, rude idea: Messing with the partitions, using (g)parted or something the like to remake partitions the way I want them, hoping for OpenSolaris/ZFS to live with this happily ever after? Or is this right about begging for re-installation anyway? I'd be surprised if you could get it to work, as the VTOC within the partition would also need some modification in order to see additional space you might add to it. But if you're willing to hack around and trash things, you might get it to go. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What about adopting rpm to package OpenSolaris?
Dennis Clarke wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kristian Rink writes: Talking about OpenSolaris though, I (honestly) don't see much use in keeping a vast bunch of different builds of the same libraries maintained - who should possibly spend time and effort doing so? Maybe in terms of OpenSolaris, people should leave aside the self-contained blastwave idea and focus on maintaining _one_ large IPS repository with a wider range of applications available rather than a bunch of fragmented ones with wagonloads of redundant binaries... Just my $0.02 on that of course... :) Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I thought that's exactly what the OpenSolaris distribution (and IPS repository) folks were attempting to do. Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. However, I think we need to have a more coordinated method that allows the unwashed masses ( people like myself ) to drop packages into a not-quite-enterprise-class repo ( like http://blastwave.network.com:1 ) and also to promote packages upwards to the pkg.opensolaris.org world. The Blastwave stuff is easy to contribute to but the pkg.opensolaris.org repo is shrouded in mystery and magic words like ARC etc. The contrib repository is basically what you're talking about; there's been a bunch of discussion about it on pkg-discuss and it will be open soon. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can I create a distribution Live CD skip the interactive configuration
Chen Jianxun wrote: Hi Is there some document can tell me how to rebuild the slim-install package? Thank you very much. http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/caiman/slim_source/usr/src/README Though you'll need Mercurial first, a bunch of tools, etc., and a copy of the source repo. See also: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/Developers/ Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] updating packages
Kristian Rink wrote: Mark; thanks for the clarification on that. :) Mark R. Bowyer schrieb: Until 2008.05 came out, I was running Nevada on both my laptop and my Ultra 20. I now have OpenSolaris (the distro) on my laptop and Nevada on my Ultra 20, mostly to be able to compare, but OpenSolaris is so much nicer, that wont last for long. I can imagine. :) Comin' from Ubuntu 8.04, I found OS 2008.05 a rather pleasant experience, the only killer thing I'd love to see though would be a better GUI integration for some of the essential OpenSolaris features (/me dreamin' of a time-machine-like nautilus integration of zfs snapshots... ;) ). Will these OpenSolaris features, however, make it to Nevada one day or will OS (as a distribution) and Nevada (and its successors) always remain two completely different shoes? The roadmap is best described by the presentations here: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Indiana Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] zfs: move and migrate installation locally?
Kristian Rink wrote: Folks; cutting things short, I'd like to move my OpenSolaris installation on my hard drive without being required to reinstall. Given zfs is a great thing, I still hope for the best here. Here's the setup: - two primary partitions (sda1, sda2) holding a Linux installation (multiple logical drives inside sda2). - one primary partition (end of drive, sda3) holds OpenSolaris. What I would like to do is dedicate sda1 and sda2 to OpenSolaris (be that one or two partitions), and free the last (sda3) as an empty testbed / playground space. I haved a slight clue how to do something like this using Linux LVM, but can it also be done using zfs? Pointers, anyone? :) Theoretically, yes, but since OpenSolaris can't use multiple fdisk partitions on the same disk, your options are fairly limited. Basically, you'll need to snapshot the installation, use zfs send to copy it off somewhere else, rework your partitions (keeping in mind that you can only have one Solaris-type fdisk partition), then use zpool to create a new pool and zfs receive to restore the snapshots into the new pool. Really, re-installing is likely to be a lot less trouble and take a lot less time, especially if you just snapshot and save off just the user data to restore after installation. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Minimal Install of OpenSolaris 2008.05
Chris Linton-Ford wrote: No, there isn't any timeframe, not even a specific plan at this point. If you really want it, contributing code to do it is the way to make it happen. If you just want someone else to do it, then you're beholden to other priorities that might be coming along. This is definitely something that I would like to see happening soon. Where would be a good starting point for people interested in adding code? The Caiman and IPS projects are the place to get involved in making something like that happen. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Minimal Install of OpenSolaris 2008.05
Stephen More wrote: Is there a timeframe or milestone when this profile will be available ? Some projects allow you to vote for certain features, is there a way I can register my vote for this one ? No, there isn't any timeframe, not even a specific plan at this point. If you really want it, contributing code to do it is the way to make it happen. If you just want someone else to do it, then you're beholden to other priorities that might be coming along. Dave -Thanks Steve More - Original Message From: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen More [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:56:30 PM Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Minimal Install of OpenSolaris 2008.05 2008/6/11 Stephen More [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: When I used to install Solaris 8 I could create a minimal install of about 300MB. How can I do the same with OpenSolaris 2008.05 ? When I boot the live cd then click to install, it tells me the minimum is 3GB. A minimal installation profile is not yet available. -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] opensolaris on a logical partition
Gorky Hasseldorf wrote: Frankho, I am sorry for the belated reply. I was very busy with so many other things during the last 3 days. I have created 3 primary partitions and the fourth one expanded into many logical partitions. All the primary partitions are filled with programs which includes Windows XP. I don't want to remove programs from the primary partitions. I want to install opensolaris on one of the logical partitions. I have 5 or 6 empty logical partitions. I want to install other Linux distros and opensolaris on those partitions. There are no problems with Linux distros. I can smoothly install any Linux distro. Solaris and opensolaris are liabilities. For some strange reason they want primary partitions. Recently I met people at SUN corporation. They hold a conference. It was SUN Expo 2008. They told me developers of Solaris do not want to change the requirement of a primary partition. That would be incorrect. We would like to remove the limitation, but it requires work in a number of areas and will take some time. In the meantime, as Frank suggested, you might try virtualization with Xen or VirtualBox, because then you'll be able to run multiple OS's at once rather than one at a time. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] open ae driver and the closed pcn(7D) driver
Dennis Clarke wrote: n.b.: topic changed It is when you consider that pcn does not work and the ae driver does. As Alan mentioned, a number of folks have been looking into ae. One issue that several folks identified (at least on the Indiana prototype) is that ae seemed to lock up on bulk transfers while the pcn driver did not: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2008-February/004712.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2008-February/004714.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2008-February/004722.html I see nothing in those messages that refers to real hardware. I think that Virtual Box should be regarded in the same light as VMware; not real. If I have the real thing, actual PCI network cards from Hewlett Packard with the AMD PCNet chips on them and they fail to work with the pcn driver but work perfectly with ae then I think my test reports and bug reports will carry more validity than virtual non-real hardware. Perhaps, except that the principal driver for making this substitution is because it's what VirtualBox emulates, and there'll be a lot more users of the driver that way than in real hardware these days. Perhaps the problem is VirtualBox's, which wouldn't be all that surprising, but getting to the bottom of it would be useful so we could make an informed decision about what to do. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MultiBoot Anyone Any time Sometime?
Kyle McDonald wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Uwe Dippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [i]I thought I read somewhere that the fdisk spec says that there can only be one fdisk partition of a particular type, thus your experiment in creating two Solaris2 fdisk partitions is invalid and that is perhaps why Solaris does not behave correctly.[/i] I mentioned already: -Multiboot is a term introduced by GRUB and unrelated to your problem -Solaris x86 supports up to 16 slices in a primary fdisk partition. 14 of them are usable for your wishes. You don't get less partitions with Solaris than you get with Linux. So what is your problem? The limitation in handling multiple Solaris fdisk partitions is a function of the disk target driver. You might be able to play games with partition id's or hiding to get around it. His problem (as I read it) is that the different Solaris installers don't (by default) make it easy to use those slices. The default GUI install for SXCE/SXDE creates only slices for the BootEnv it is creating and one other. The Indiana installer currently forces you to take the whole Solaris Partition for the ZFS root pool. Indiana should offer more choices later I beleive. Right, the limitations of SXDE and Indiana are specific choices we made in order to get a simplified installer out in the times requested. At some point we'll handle co-existence better, but it's not a top priority, because, guess what, the previews are not aimed at existing Solaris users. If you really, really wanted to have both SXDE and Indiana in the same partition, you could do something like this: - install SXDE first, make sure it has enough space so it creates the second root slice. - install Indiana to some other disk (like a USB drive) - see the thread at http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=52225tstart=0 for a way to move the Indiana installation to the second root slice You of course lose the LU capability for SXDE unless you can carve up some more space for an additional slice. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Developer Preview 2 Available
Andrew Watkins wrote: The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-) I see Indiana is an experiment well I think it is more than that! Eventually, we expect it will be more, that's what Larry is saying. Which part of the quote below do you think is contradictory to that? Dave From: Net Talks Webcast Details: Sorting Out Solaris Releases http://nettalk.sun.com/bhive/t/1000/webcast_details.jsp?content_id=1422 Larry Wake (Solaris Group Marking Manager) Quote : == OpenSolaris as a distro (Project Indiana) - Coming soon - To replace SXDE, not Solaris 10 - yet == Andrew ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Developer Preview 2 Available
Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 13, 2008 11:10 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: o ksh93 is the default *system* shell (bash remains the default user shell) What do you understand by *system* shell? /sbin/sh, /usr/bin/sh are now really ksh93. The old shell is now: /usr/has/bin/sh Well, then Suun seems to start an incompatible fork from OpenSolaris. Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything, either past or future, in the preview releases. It's an experiment. The negativity some of you have towards experiments just amazes me sometimes. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [advocacy-discuss] OpenSolaris Developer Preview 2 Available
Peter Tribble wrote: On Feb 13, 2008 8:44 PM, Dave Miner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh. We have made no statements about compatibility with anything, either past or future, in the preview releases. It's an experiment. The negativity some of you have towards experiments just amazes me sometimes. But what's the experiment? Is OpenSolaris an experiment? Is Indiana an experiment? Is the preview an experiment? The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-) Perhaps this will be more helpful: in terms of the release taxonomy[1] that the ARC uses, we'd say that the Indiana releases are snapshots of a development train that has a Minor Release binding. For what it's worth, SXDE and SXCE are classified the same way. That doesn't mean that every snapshot will necessarily qualify to be a Minor Release in terms of compatibility, though. If anyone's expecting that every build that comes out won't break compatibility in some way, that's just not realistic. Besides the unintentional cases that inevitably happen, it'll also happen as pieces come together in stages. Obviously some find a few of the experiments in the Indiana train unsettling, but we think it's the best way to figure out where to go. It would help a lot if the aims of this project were clearly explained and enunciated, because I for one haven't a clue what they are, and the more I think about it and look at what has been announced and what's happening, the less clear it is to me what Indiana stands for. The opening statement on the project page[2] remains as good a summary as any in terms of the aims. I think that's been quite stable since the beginning. Dave [1] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/release-taxonomy/ [2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/indiana/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Joerg Schilling wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Indiana is/becomes a (too) Linux or GNU inspired platform, a majority of the longstanding Solaris users in the community will not follow. Note that the people who used Solaris before OpenSolaris came out could have selected Linux a long time ago. They did not and the reason is that Solaris was close to the UNIX roots. The term compliance is not what we can use in such a discussion unless it is well defined and does not just list the latest Sun idea.. But Joerg, most of the us working on Indiana have not talked about forsaking our so-called UNIX roots in order to turn the platform into a strictly GNU/Linux inspired platform. Rather, what we've been saying is there are aspects of the latter platform which can be brought to OpenSolaris without losing or betraying those UNIX roots. We have to see how much change Indiana will bring and then decide. Some people did already complain about the first preview. And some people praised it and supported the experimental changes made there. So much of this reminds me of all the BSD-SVR4 religion of 20 years ago. SunOS changed then to build something better, and my view is that's to a fair extent similar to what we're doing with Indiana. I keep hoping we can agree on the need to change and start finding ways to accommodate, but so far my hopes seem in vain. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 'more' broken in b77 miniroot?
Kyle McDonald wrote: James Carlson wrote: Jürgen Keil writes: In snv_75a, the miniroot /sbin/sulogin shell script contains this line: exec 0 /dev/console 10 20 The miniroot /sbin/sulogin from snv_75a has SCCS ID @(#)sulogin.sh 1.5. Has that changed for snv_77? It's still the same in the gate. This might be the difference. I didn't choose 'Single User Shell' from the menu. The machine is configured to do Custom Jumpstart automatically, and to see the environment the Begin script would run in, I temporarily changed the begin script to just call 'exit 1'. This made JumpStart give up and leave me a shell prompt. Is this prompt JumpStart left me at supposed to be the same as 'sulogin'? No, it's not meant to be at all. You can file a bug on it, but clearly you should be able to work around this. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] lofi questions?
Kyle McDonald wrote: Hi, I recently read that the option for compression on loopback devices was put back recently. It hasn't actually been integrated into the mainline sources yet (should be soon, probably build 80), though it's obviously included in the developer preview because that's what it was developed for. This is good news. Where to look for more info? like: What compression types are supported? Darren gave you the pointers here... I'm specifically hoping to use it on compressed .iso files. In the PC world there are several utilities that work (burn, mount, create, etc.) .isz files which are compressed ISO's. I once tried to uncompress one with gzip hwoever and it didn't like it so I'm not sure what compression is used in a .isz. Anyone know? Can I use the same .isz on both types of systems? Lastly, most of the ISO's I'll be mounting will be Solaris DVD images. Currently I keep the .iso, and then mount it, and run 'setup_install_server' to copy it to disk for Jumpstarts. If I were to only keep the (compressed) .iso file, and permanently lofi mount it where I would normally copy it to, is that enough for Jumpstart? We aren't currently using this on the Solaris DVD iso's, and don't presently have any plans to do so, unless you count the eventual replacement of the current Solaris media structure with one defined by Caiman, which is some time off yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] lofi questions?
Kyle McDonald wrote: Dave Miner wrote: We aren't currently using this on the Solaris DVD iso's, and don't presently have any plans to do so, unless you count the eventual replacement of the current Solaris media structure with one defined by Caiman, which is some time off yet. I was just asking if the ISO file structure was enough like how setup install server placed the files on disk when it copies them, that JumpStart wouldn't have any issues if I just mount the ISO, and share that out over NFS instead of copying it to UFS or ZFS. Not having to keep both the expanded copy and the ISO would save space, and if the ISO could be compressed, then it could save more space. I suppose the other route would be to not keep the ISO at all, and install the copy on ZFS with compression turned on. Still not having to do the copy saves time also. Yes, as Darren indicated you can just serve clients from the ISO. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Laptop testing OpenSolaris (Indiana) on ODM laptops
David Clack wrote: Hi All, As I mentioned at the OpenSolaris Developer conference, I've been working with a couple of laptop ODMs to try and find a laptop for OpenSolaris vs the other way round. Trying to get Solaris installed with drivers missing. Both ECS and ASUS have supplied me with laptops that have an Nvidia GPU and Intel chipset. Both laptop are clocking 7000 FPS on the glxgears benchmark. Attached is my testing spreadsheet for each machine, they are both running B75a. On the ECS 15.4 (this is not on the market yet) all the components including the webcam work, I'm just working on keyboard mapping and e-sata, even the hdmi works. All hardware for this laptop is supported of the DVD. On the ASUS C90S I do have to add a couple of drivers for the ethernet and atheros pci-e mini card. I'm working on the webcam and card reader. As it has a desktop CPU on board currently a Intel Dual Core 2.44Ghz the performance is stunning. I'll update you on the e-sata and keyboard Fn-Function key issues as I proceed. Thanks Dave Thanks for the update, Dave. Have you had a chance to try them with the live CD yet? It would be good to know whether there are specific driver issues there that are different from Nevada. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Downloading the latest build...
Bryan Cantu wrote: How do I get the latest build. I have been looking for a build to correct bug:6589662 but can't find a build other than snv_70. I must be looking in the wrong spot... It's fixed in 72, which is not out yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Java Server on nv_69
Calum Benson wrote: On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:22 -0400, Dave Miner wrote: Calum Benson wrote: On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 10:11 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: BTW I installed nv_70 last night. It did have a major problem--I was not able to preserve the installed slices. Perhaps someone can tell me what I did wrong. I guess you used the new installer :) It doesn't preserve slices and never will IIRC, see recent thread on caiman-discuss et al. Calum, we never said that it never will, just that it doesn't right now because that wasn't a requirement for the target user. Whether it will in the future is a decision yet to be made. Ok, noted... thought I'd read that there wouldn't be any point when ZFS kicked in, but all that sort of stuff's way above my head :) We believe it'll be less useful with ZFS. Whether less == not is very much up for discussion. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Java Server on nv_69
Calum Benson wrote: On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 10:11 -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: BTW I installed nv_70 last night. It did have a major problem--I was not able to preserve the installed slices. Perhaps someone can tell me what I did wrong. I guess you used the new installer :) It doesn't preserve slices and never will IIRC, see recent thread on caiman-discuss et al. Calum, we never said that it never will, just that it doesn't right now because that wasn't a requirement for the target user. Whether it will in the future is a decision yet to be made. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE 70's installer and laying out file systems
UNIX admin wrote: All matters relating to the new installer and layout have been and are discussed on the caiman-discuss list, mostly copied to the install-discuss list. I suggest people with issues take them to those lists rather than air them here. FYI, I've already (long before you wrote this response) started a topic on the default FS layout on install: discuss. In spite of that, I still don't see why such a topic should NOT be discussed on opensolaris general discussion. It's about OpenSolaris, and it concerns OpenSolaris. You can have the discussion here if that's what floats your boat, but you can also be certain that most of the people you'd like to have the discussion with will *not* be participating in it because they've got better things to do than wade through the general morass of other mis-directed or otherwise pointless discussions which occur here, so you're just barely beyond talking to yourself in terms of effecting change. If you want to have a discussion about installation, then you'll do a lot better to have it on install-discuss (or caiman-discuss, if it's specific to the behavior of the new installer). Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Java package name allocations
Peter Tribble wrote: Is there a registry of java package names, to avoid name clashes? For example, in jkstat, can I just use org.opensolaris.jkstat? (And what's the difference between org.opensolaris and org.opensolaris.os?) It strikes me that there ought to be a central list of package names so that we can avoid conflicts. (Using the project name as the last component seems reasonable, as project names ought to be unique.) The ARC's used to maintain a registry for Sun's portion of the namespace, but since the sac server's not responding today I don't know if it's still up-to-date. I don't know whether the OpenSolaris portion of the namespace is registered or managed in any way. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Gathering support to replace the current DHCP
Greg Potts wrote: Allen Wittenauer wrote: ... As a sidenote, while the Solaris DHCP server back-end is supposed to be pluggable, example code was (and probably still is) non-existent unless you grovel through the (Open)Solaris codebase. When I last asked Dave Miner about it a few years ago, he said he didn't know of anyone that actually implemented one either The Netra HA suite actually does, though I may not have known it at the time you asked (which I don't recall, to be honest ;-) I'm pretty sure, though, that I would have pointed anyone who asked at the DHCP Service Developer's Guide on docs.sun.com, which does have some rudimentary examples and a pointer to download the ASCII files code (a setup which is somewhat obsolete now that we've got OpenSolaris). Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org The point is what's the point of an API that very few are willing to use. Even with Sun's own attempts to market added value to the existing net installation framework (namely N1OSP) they choose ISC over the in house implementation, stating that there where insurmountable issue that required ISC. It's not an API that I would have expected to have a lot of use - maybe an implementation of LDAP as the store, or an ODBC database. Beyond that there weren't a lot of other reasons why it would have been necessary. As I recall with N1, that product had been mostly developed outside Sun on ISC prior to us acquiring it, so I wouldn't read too much into what it supported. The main issue they had with moving onto the Solaris server was support for multiple network prefixes on the same physical link, which is a surmountable problem were someone willing to invest in solving it. It's never been high enough on the networking priority list to get Sun engineers to work on. Overall, I don't really care which way we go forward, but from a Solaris product support perspective there needs to be a transition plan, and that's where previous Sun-internal initiatives have petered out. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Gathering support to replace the current DHCP
Allen Wittenauer wrote: ... As a sidenote, while the Solaris DHCP server back-end is supposed to be pluggable, example code was (and probably still is) non-existent unless you grovel through the (Open)Solaris codebase. When I last asked Dave Miner about it a few years ago, he said he didn't know of anyone that actually implemented one either The Netra HA suite actually does, though I may not have known it at the time you asked (which I don't recall, to be honest ;-) I'm pretty sure, though, that I would have pointed anyone who asked at the DHCP Service Developer's Guide on docs.sun.com, which does have some rudimentary examples and a pointer to download the ASCII files code (a setup which is somewhat obsolete now that we've got OpenSolaris). Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] new to solaris, can you answer some questions please?
Eric Boutilier wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Dave Miner wrote: Eric Boutilier wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Dave Miner wrote: ... See: http://blogs.sun.com/dminer/entry/indiana_installer_prototype This news (which I think is *awesome*, by the way) makes me wonder now more than ever which install clusters do/don't contain non-redistributable files (if any). http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2007-June/001328.html That is, given that the kit enables creating a custom liveDVD that can *also* now be installed to HD. The images built by the kit are not redistributable (we aren't modifying the license under which you downloaded the original Solaris Express DVD image), and that's part of the reason why we aren't yet putting up pre-built images. Thanks. I'm still wondering though if any of the smaller metaclusters are free of non-redistributable files, i.e. in case someone wanted to be adventuresome and use the kit w/out downloading the Solaris Express DVD image. It's a trivial modification to use the kit with a custom package list (which I think you've done), so that part's not a problem, but I don't believe it's possible to obtain the contents of any existing Solaris metacluster other than by using the media images from the download center, which means you're subject to the license agreed to in that process. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] new to solaris, can you answer some questions please?
UNIX admin wrote: can we not take a look at project caiman now? I would think that there is a prototype stage at this point. Yes, but it's not finished, and according to Dave Miner, it doesn't install anything yet. Old information. See: http://blogs.sun.com/dminer/entry/indiana_installer_prototype The real Dwarf Caiman installer integration, which uses the existing pfinstall engine, is imminent. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] new to solaris, can you answer some questions please?
Eric Boutilier wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Dave Miner wrote: ... See: http://blogs.sun.com/dminer/entry/indiana_installer_prototype This news (which I think is *awesome*, by the way) makes me wonder now more than ever which install clusters do/don't contain non-redistributable files (if any). http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2007-June/001328.html That is, given that the kit enables creating a custom liveDVD that can *also* now be installed to HD. The images built by the kit are not redistributable (we aren't modifying the license under which you downloaded the original Solaris Express DVD image), and that's part of the reason why we aren't yet putting up pre-built images. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Express Developer Edition on CD?
Orvar Korvar wrote: I can not boot from Dev Ed (or any solaris version) DVD. I have tried 4 different DVD readers and none will boot the DVD. I suspect it is my motherboard's fault. I have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 1GB RAM. When I lectured on Solaris, several of my students couldnt boot from any Solaris DVD, they were forced to use the CD's. Or perhaps your DVD writer needs a firmware update; I have a Sony which had some issues like this with the original firmware. I have looked for the developers edition on CD, but can not find it anywhere. Is it not available, then why? Or I havent looked well enough? The Developer Edition install is only available on the DVD due to some limitations in how it's constructed. You can get essentially the same thing by installing the community edition of build 64a, and then downloading and installing SunStudio 12 and Netbeans 5.5. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Express Developer Edition on CD?
Dennis Clarke wrote: Orvar Korvar wrote: I can not boot from Dev Ed (or any solaris version) DVD. I have tried 4 different DVD readers and none will boot the DVD. I suspect it is my motherboard's fault. I have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 1GB RAM. When I lectured on Solaris, several of my students couldnt boot from any Solaris DVD, they were forced to use the CD's. Or perhaps your DVD writer needs a firmware update; I have a Sony which had some issues like this with the original firmware. I have looked for the developers edition on CD, but can not find it anywhere. Is it not available, then why? Or I havent looked well enough? The Developer Edition install is only available on the DVD due to some limitations in how it's constructed. here is the link to the CDROM downloads : You can download CD's; you can't select the Solaris Express Developer Edition install from them. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] dhcpconfig java error
Christopher Gibbs wrote: Has anybody ran dhcpconfig on SXDE b64? I get this nice java error, although it seems to configure most everything else: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ /usr/lib/inet/dhcp/svcadm/dhcpconfig -D -r SUNWfiles -p /var/dhcp Created DHCP configuration file. Created dhcptab. Added Locale macro to dhcptab. dhcpconfig: Error - creating server macro for server java.lang.NullPointerException. Any idea how to troubleshoot this? - Aside from running dhcpmgr in the GUI This apparently has shown up in cases where /etc/dhcp/inittab was missing for some reason. I'd check that, and otherwise use truss to see what else might be happening. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 Update 4 questions
Steve Stallion wrote: On 7/6/07, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those aren't there yet as the new installer has not been adopted yet. It's safe to say those are a future release. Plus, since I know SPARC support isn't ready, I know Sun wouldn't do that :) Does anyone know if Live Update will support zfs rooted zones? ZFS installation support of any kind, including Live Upgrade, will not be included in this update. The only new installation feature which will be included is the support for Live Upgrade with zones on UFS. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Deferred Patching Scheme
Lu, Baolu wrote: Hopefully I can get one of those who actually did the work to post a blog entry about it. Anyway, the executables and libraries which need to remain stable during the entire duration of the patching application and would be affected by the patch operation are copied into a temporary location, lofs is used to mount them up into the original location, and then we can patch the originals without adversely affecting the binaries How can the originals be accessed while another file system mounting on its dir? In my understanding, the originals will be covered by the new mounted file system until it is umounted. The original root is also loopback mounted into another alternate root so that it can be operated on. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Deferred Patching Scheme
Bob Palowoda wrote: Steven Sim wrote: Folks; Today Sun BIG ADMIN website posted an article by Lynne Thompson entitled What's New in Patching See http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/sundocs/articles/patch-wn. jsp Could somebody here elaborate more on the following statement .Now, deferred-activation patching uses the loopback file system (lofs) to ensure the stability of the running system. When a patch is applied to the running system, the lofs preserves stability during the patching process. These large kernel patches have always required a reboot, but now the required reboot activates the changes made by the lofs... It's a bit confusing..especially the part about lofs preserves stability during the patching process Hopefully I can get one of those who actually did the work to post a blog entry about it. Anyway, the executables and libraries which need to remain stable during the entire duration of the patching application and would be affected by the patch operation are copied into a temporary location, lofs is used to mount them up into the original location, and then we can patch the originals without adversely affecting the binaries in use. You must reboot at the end of such a patch application to get the system back into a consistent state. Live Upgrade for patching is still recommended, since it's at least as safe and doesn't require quiescing the system to apply such patches, but this provides an alternative when that is not an option. Is this the new patching scheme that is going to be open sourced for project Indiana? No, it is a Solaris 10-specific solution and is expected to remain there. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Deferred Patching Scheme
Steven Sim wrote: Folks; Today Sun BIG ADMIN website posted an article by Lynne Thompson entitled What's New in Patching See http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/sundocs/articles/patch-wn.jsp Could somebody here elaborate more on the following statement .Now, deferred-activation patching uses the loopback file system (lofs) to ensure the stability of the running system. When a patch is applied to the running system, the lofs preserves stability during the patching process. These large kernel patches have always required a reboot, but now the required reboot activates the changes made by the lofs... It's a bit confusing..especially the part about lofs preserves stability during the patching process Hopefully I can get one of those who actually did the work to post a blog entry about it. Anyway, the executables and libraries which need to remain stable during the entire duration of the patching application and would be affected by the patch operation are copied into a temporary location, lofs is used to mount them up into the original location, and then we can patch the originals without adversely affecting the binaries in use. You must reboot at the end of such a patch application to get the system back into a consistent state. Live Upgrade for patching is still recommended, since it's at least as safe and doesn't require quiescing the system to apply such patches, but this provides an alternative when that is not an option. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] C-team, and ON aliases
[removed opensolaris-code for this specific question] Stephen Lau wrote: ... The reason I ask is with the advent of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the move to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] a mandatory subscription for all registered users; the OGB would like to move project delivery announcements (e.g.: ON b67 is now available!) off of opensolaris-announce, and onto project/community-specific discussion lists. I'm not sure I follow what the intention is for those of us who might want to hear about milestones from other projects without following their entire discussion list - would the example ON b67 is available announcement be going to project-announce? Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] C-team, and ON aliases
Stephen Lau wrote: Dave Miner wrote: [removed opensolaris-code for this specific question] Stephen Lau wrote: ... The reason I ask is with the advent of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the move to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] a mandatory subscription for all registered users; the OGB would like to move project delivery announcements (e.g.: ON b67 is now available!) off of opensolaris-announce, and onto project/community-specific discussion lists. I'm not sure I follow what the intention is for those of us who might want to hear about milestones from other projects without following their entire discussion list - would the example ON b67 is available announcement be going to project-announce? No, the idea is for project-announce to only be used for new project announcements. Milestone announcements should go to the project-specific list (e.g.: on-announce or something for ON b67 is available). Seems awfully low volume to have bothered with a separate list - ~2 messages per week based on historical activity? Seems to me like we're fragmenting where it's not needed. Does this mean that opensolaris-announce is reserved for OGB announcements then? Is it common for people to want to hear about milestones from projects without following the discussion list? I admit, that's not something I do so it's not something I had thought of. Would people be interested in having something like a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list or something? So, maybe I'm weird (though I am on lots of project lists already, which is only possible with an extensive set of mail filters which I'd prefer not to keep growing). But I think your proposed model presents a barrier to getting people interested in projects that may not have been of interest when they were first announced. It's my perception most of them (Indiana *not* included) could use more publicity to help get energy and attention directed to solving the problems, rather than aimless conversations here on opensolaris-discuss - I'd actually like to be seeing *more* announcements of progress from projects than we currently get... Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)
Bonnie Corwin wrote: Keith M Wesolowski wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:41:52AM +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: The process requires that this be sent to one or more community groups for sponsorship consideration... I don't agree. Here's how I'd put it: The almost-but-not-quite-yet OGB blessed project instantiation draft proposal will require that this be sent... etc. It was approved in the public and open April 25th meeting, the minutes of which reflect that approval and were posted as required. Subsequent feedback is a basis for modifying the policy; it is not a barrier to its implementation. No one read the final document and the minutes and said This is not the policy we approved; a new vote is needed. We simply cannot allow cycles of feedback, however constructive and worthwhile, to delay indefinitely the adoption and implementation of a policy that has already been approved in accordance with the Constitution. In short: The policy was approved by the OGB and that approval was communicated to the community in accordance with the Constitution. It is in effect, and project teams are expected to follow it. I'm sorry, but this doesn't work. You can not expect community members to read all minutes from all OGB meetings (which don't happen regularly) to see if decisions were made that change policies and processes for OpenSolaris. We have an -announce alias. We have process directions on various web pages. How does it make any sense to say that something approved in a meeting and captured in minutes is now policy that everyone has to follow? When there was no announcement, there are no new directions posted, and Eric's repeated emails saying he was continuing to set up projects using the old process were ignored. I'm with Bonnie here. So far, it seems that the OGB expects all of us to follow the discussions on ogb-discuss in order to know about significant changes in policy. I'm also perturbed at the amount of discussion that's apparently occurred about re-organizing communities, yet as a leader of a community which is apparently subject to some change here, I've had *zero* communication with the OGB on the topic. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_64a says 768MB RAM to play ?
Dennis Clarke wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: I was shocked to see that my old old trusty HP Kayak XU tower was finally at a point where it can not install Solaris. I have run Solaris 8 and 9 and 10 on it for years and years. It has two DVD burners and three SCSI controllers, terribly simple graphics and no sound. It just works.[1] I burned the snv_64a DVD and discovered that the 512MB of RAM was no longer reasonable for the installer. I'm shocked. Am I to understand that the x86 miniroot on there will fill up all of my RAM and still need more? Gee. Time for a new machine I guess but this one won't die and it runs Solaris 10 just fine. So then, whats the minimal system spec that Solaris 11 is shooting for? I'll guess 1GB RAM, 18GB of disk, 100Mb/sec ethernet and a 1GHz proc. As has been repeatedly discussed here, sorry, missed that .. the S/N ratio here can often be ... well you know. You could help that by having installation-related conversations on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pkgrm staroffice .. not quite clean
Dennis Clarke wrote: If I continually grep for staroffice8 in /var/sadm/install/contents and then pkgrm those packages until finally grep returns nothing I would expect that the staroffice8 directory in /opt would be gone also. # cd /opt # grep staroffice8 /var/sadm/install/contents # find staroffice8/ staroffice8/ Nope .. its there still. Probably the package prototype file is missing something ? # rmdir staroffice8/ No, it's that all of the StarOffice packages use /opt/staroffice8 as their BASEDIR setting and thus it never appears in any pkgmap, nor the contents file, as something that is created or removed directly by the package. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: [desktop-discuss] Re: New project: JPack -
Peter Tribble wrote: On 5/11/07, MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, it is important to provide detailed package information. I don't know if a system is in place to provide a details section like you see in Synaptic ( http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/docteam/images/synaptic-start.png ), but there should be. We would need to get the actual content from somewhere, in order to display it. As far as I know, what goes into pkginfo files is a too terse to be useful like that. This probably has to be associated with the package, rather than simply being metadata in a remote repository. Questions for the install community really: - do we have this sort of verbose and user-friendly descriptions available for packages? - would this go into the pkginfo file (I think this would be rather difficult)? - if this doesn't go into the pkginfo file is there some other pre-existing standard file to hold it, or would inventing something new be necessary? It would have to be localized as well, so there would be quite a lot of work in getting nice descriptions. The DESC field in the pkginfo file is more or less this, though it has limitations that limit the richness of the description. It doesn't have any direct provision for localization, though. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: blastwave package handling
Octave Orgeron wrote: What if we do something like this: [details ellided] At the risk of repeating myself for about the 50th time in the past year, I'd encourage these packaging-related discussions to occur with the community list specifically devoted to them, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those in the community with ideas can actually start working on them, since the packaging sources are open, and have been for over a year now. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: blastwave package handling
Eric Boutilier wrote: At the risk of repeating myself for about the 50th time in the past year, I'd encourage these packaging-related discussions to occur with the community list specifically devoted to them, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those in the community with ideas can actually start working on them, since the packaging sources are open, and have been for over a year now. An interesting metric would be the percentage of core contributors who (understandably IMO) don't read this list. Eric, you're one of the few who could actually produce that result ;-) I know I can't. What I can say is that I do read every message that comes to install-discuss, while I only read a portion of opensolaris-discuss, so the metric you suggest still doesn't accurately reflect the actual chances of gaining attention of those you might wish to engage... Hey, if it would help get people directed in the right place I'd split off a packaging-discuss list for the SVR4 packaging project, but I tend to doubt it would have any real effect, since these conversations (as was the case here) all too often are a digression from some completely different initial topic. But I'd certainly take feedback on that idea. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal : OpenSolaris on extended partitions
Pavan T C wrote: Hi, The aim of the project is to enable the installation and booting of OpenSolaris from an extended partition. This project will be delivered in multiple phases. The first phase is to introduce all OS changes necessary to support booting from and managing extended partitions on OpenSolaris. Here are the list of changes for phase 1 : 1. Driver Changes ( cmlb : modification) 2. Tools to perform partitioning (fdisk, format : modification) 3. Library to provide partitioning support (libfdisk : new) 4. Grub changes ( GRUB and installgrub : modification) I don't understand why the phase above doesn't include device nodes. I also don't see how we can possibly install to an extended partition without device nodes (OK, I can imagine ways, but not ones that would pass any reasonable design review). I'd suggest you simply scope the project to add support so that OpenSolaris can see, create, and use filesystems on extended partitions just as with primary partitions. Installation to them is, as you noted later, a distribution-specific issue at this point, anyway, and should be a logically separate project. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal : OpenSolaris on extended partitions
Frank Hofmann wrote: ... What Pavan's project does is to allow putting the Solaris VTOC elsewhere (not into a place accessible via a device node on Solaris/x86) and add detection code into the disk target driver to locate the VTOC elsewhere. I.e. you'll be able to have sX device nodes _without_ having any primary pX device node of type SUNIXOS/SUNIXOS2 that has a Solaris VTOC in it. You're not going to see the device node anymore that has the VTOC in it. The focus on VTOC's seems misguided; VTOC's are so yesterday, with all their limitations. We're much more interested in moving Solaris installation towards the ZFS pooled model. That seems to get even better for the user if we can place the pools into general pX devices, thus my interest in making that a priority. The current two-layer partitioning model that Solaris imposes seems to be a very large usability problem for those coming from all the other systems which don't have it. So I'd rather see if we can start designing it out, not embedding it yet further. I'd suggest you simply scope the project to add support so that OpenSolaris can see, create, and use filesystems on extended partitions just as with primary partitions. Installation to them is, as you noted later, a distribution-specific issue at this point, anyway, and should be a logically separate project. I'd give _that_ a +infty. But that's not what is being talked about. I'm hoping we can move it in that direction with this discussion. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [install-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] rpm vs pkgadd (again!)
James Carlson wrote: Laszlo (Laca) Peter writes: On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:57 -0500, James Carlson wrote: The existing rule is that you need to build on a system that is at least as old as what you plan to support. You can then test for that minimum system version and (because libraries are carefully designed to be stable ;-}) run on any newer version. Exactly. But how do I express this as a package dependency? In other words, what stops users from installing my package on a system that is older than the oldest I plan to support? If you avoid microscopic package versioning, you either tell customers supported on Solaris X and above and be done with it, or (if you're feeling pedantic) you test uname -r and the existence of the objects (such as /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1) in question during a preinstall script. Actually, that should be in a checkinstall script. For things on existing versions of Solaris, delivery of patches gives you a richer way to express dependency, because of just this problem. It's not well connected with packaging, though. Overall, though, I don't think integrating generic = pseudo-numeric version checks in the packaging system is all that attractive; few of the versioning systems used by the different families of packages seem to behave consistently, either within themselves or across families, thus it seems a waste to invest there when it's only effective if discipline is observed by the package maintainers. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Live upgrade from snv_27a to snv_53 error
sundaram ramasamy wrote: Hi, I have opensolaris x86 installed on my pc. it has two hard drive, now I want to intall snv_53 on second hard dirve using Live Upgrade, I ran the following lucreate command. Its giving me the following error message: ... I need some help to perform this update. It's not going to work, because there are dependencies in the snv_53 Live Upgrade tools which the snv_27 libraries can't meet, hence the messages. If you want to use Live Upgrade between builds on the Solaris Express train, you should stay fairly current, as we usually only test a release or two back, and going a year between upgrades will almost certainly not work. You'll need to use the standard upgrade by booting from CD/DVD/net and upgrading in place. Or do a fresh install. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [i18n-discuss] Re: Re: Is it legal to install....
Ienup Sung wrote: Kyle J. McDonald wrote at 11/28/06 14:09: Thanks for sharing the info, Kyle. It is indeed a bit unusual way to install and expand the system. If you could blog the detail and share the link, I think that will be an interesting info for whom want to do the same or similar. I can post the package add/deletes from my JS profile after I reproduce it. That'll be wonderful information. There was some related activities called minimization but I'm not quite sure whether there was any conclusion on that. I cc'd opensolaris-discuss mailing list for possible comment from other folks on that. Sun's official position on minimization in Solaris 8 through 10 is available to support customers as infodoc 86177. The recommendation there is to start with a smaller metacluster and add packages, rather than start larger and remove, so Kyle's actually done what we'd recommend. The lack of maintainable package dependencies is an obvious problem in attempting to support minimization and leaves us with many issues such as he's reported in this thread. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [i18n-discuss] Re: Re: Is it legal to install....
Ienup Sung wrote: That's great and thanks for sharing the information. Is the infodoc available freely/publically by the way? SunSolve says it's not free. Glenn Brunette was the primary author/discussion moderator and is probably the best person to address whether it can be published elsewhere. Dave Ienup Dave Miner wrote at 11/29/06 07:49: Ienup Sung wrote: Kyle J. McDonald wrote at 11/28/06 14:09: Thanks for sharing the info, Kyle. It is indeed a bit unusual way to install and expand the system. If you could blog the detail and share the link, I think that will be an interesting info for whom want to do the same or similar. I can post the package add/deletes from my JS profile after I reproduce it. That'll be wonderful information. There was some related activities called minimization but I'm not quite sure whether there was any conclusion on that. I cc'd opensolaris-discuss mailing list for possible comment from other folks on that. Sun's official position on minimization in Solaris 8 through 10 is available to support customers as infodoc 86177. The recommendation there is to start with a smaller metacluster and add packages, rather than start larger and remove, so Kyle's actually done what we'd recommend. The lack of maintainable package dependencies is an obvious problem in attempting to support minimization and leaves us with many issues such as he's reported in this thread. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Installing IRIX 6.5.x from a Solaris system?
UNIX admin wrote: Which DHCP server are you using? In a previous message on this thread, you hinted that you were using some other DHCP server -- not the one in Solaris. I did? No, it's in.dhcpd that comes with Solaris. If you're using the Solaris DHCP server, the easiest way (by far) to administer it is using the dhcpmgr GUI. It's hidden over in /usr/sadm/admin/bin/dhcpmgr. (Note: you likely want a DHCP/BOOTP server, not a relay.) Yes, but that GUI is weird. For example, the address for the PXE boot client is marked unusable. Well, what does that mean? There should be pretty ample documentation on what that means, but it will mean one of 3 things: 1. Somebody marked it unusable using pntadm or dhcpmgr 2. The DHCP server attempted to offer the address, but some system answered the ICMP Echo that is sent out to verify that it's unused before offering. 3. The client responded to the server's offer of the address with a DHCP Decline message, which is usually because some other system responded to the ARP request that clients send to double-check the address is free before accepting it. Either of the latter two sometimes happen because of buggy clients. And then when I define the Octane, it won't let me really enter anything in the client field, it's greyed out. And there are some Java exceptions showing up. Without exact text of those exceptions I won't attempt to speculate on the problem. Note that I haven't modified Java-anything on the system. If you want to use the command line instead, then you need to use pntadm to set the flags on a static client entry to 08 (BOOTP) to let in.dhcpd know that this is an old-school BOOTP client. I still haven't figured out what the difference between `dhtadm` and `pntadm` is. The simple answer is that pntadm manages the addresses available for DHCP management; dhtadm manages the parameters that are supplied to DHCP clients in addition to the addresses. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Device Detection Tool
Glynn Foster wrote: Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Project Proposal: Device Detection Tool +1 The tool belongs on opensolaris.org +1 on the provision that it doesn't only submit the data to bigadmin. One of the reasons why Ubuntu has flourished is because of their hwinfo tool that provides feedback on what is and isn't working from your recent install - invaluable in so many ways IMHO. Our intention with Caiman is to work with this project team to integrate the technology with the installation (and post-installation) experience so that we are providing the best driver information we can. I certainly give this proposal a +1. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: How to Upgrade Nevada Build 48
Nicolas Linkert wrote: It would definetely be a good idea to examine apt-get, yum etc. Debian is especially strong because of apt-get. With apt-get dist-upgrade I upgrade the whole system e.g. from Debian sarge to etch. We have examined them. The plans for Solaris installation are posted for discussion over in the Installation and Packaging community. Come join that community if you're interested in contributing. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: From Linux to OpenSolaris
James McPherson wrote: On 10/3/06, W. Wayne Liauh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Keep watching the release news, and skip the releases which don't offer anything too interesting, then download the DVD/CD release, burn and upgrade installation. Negative is that you'd need to download whole wad of 2.5 G stuff. - Akhilesh Can your upgrade from the iso images (on harddisc) w/o first burning into a DVD? Thanks. Yes you can, but you need the update_nonON scripts that (inside Sun at least) are in /ws/onnv-gate/public/bin. The better supported avenue is to set up an alternate boot environment using Live Upgrade, then you can mount the .iso using lofs and upgrade the alternate environment. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [sysadmin-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] list applied patches for Solaris 8 9
Peter Tribble wrote: On 8/30/06, *Dave Miner* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: Patches get applied almot as if they are packages. You will find a complete list of the patches in /var/sadm/patch and if you look there with ls -ltr then you will get a cronological order. If you just ls in the ordinary way then you get the list of all patches as well as the previous revs of the patches applied. Careful. patchadd -p or showrev -p are the supported interfaces. Everything else is implementation detail that we will not commit to supporting. Sort of. The problem is that the question isn't entirely unambiguous. One possible meaning of the question is What bugfixes are applied to this machine?.As fixes are supplied via patches, this largely boils down to looking at showrev -p. (Although why we have two supported interfaces to do the same thing isn't clear.) The reason we have two interfaces that push out exactly the same data is historical - showrev was the way we SunOS 4 provided this sort of info, so we made it work on SunOS 5. But since that's not the most well-known interface, nor an interface that one would obviously associate with patching, the functionality was later added to the patch tools. One enhancement that might be considered is an easy supported way to answer the question Has abcdef-xy been applied? Sure, that's a good enhancement. Another possible meaning is What actual patches have been applied since the system was installed?.(This is is related to the question What patches do I need to download to bring a second system to the same state as the first?) In this case, I generally am not interested in those patches that appear in showrev -p output (and maybe not in patches that have been obsoleted by a newer patch or revision), and looking in /var/sadm/patch gives me the answer I want. These are also good questions, and we should be supplying public interfaces to answer them, rather than having customers groveling around in /var/sadm/patch and inferring the answers based on the implementation details. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: i18n libc bits [was Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Real work needs to be done Was: Re:]
Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, James Carlson wrote: ... not encumbered. I can't ... but perhaps there's someone interested who can. Why can't you make such a proposal?* You (and all other Sun engineers) are just as much of our community as anyone else, so in principle there should be no problem. Unless you're alluding to company politics, in which case, I'll keep shtoom! I believe Jim means that he can't do the work. If you are sufficiently exposed to the closed implementation, you obviously can't be a participant in a clean-room reimplementation. Making a proposal isn't prohibited, but proposals that you can't back up by contributing seem kinda empty ;-) Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pkgmk sources
William Bonnet wrote: Hi all I am looking for the sources of the pkgmk tool. Are these sources open sourced ? if yes does anyone could tell me please where to find it ? Yes, they are. Start at: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/svr4_packaging/ I looked into cvs.opensolaris.org without find the sources. We've been a little thin on resources and haven't had time to get them loaded onto the source browser. Regards, William PS: Sorry if this is not the good forum to post this... It's OK, but a better one is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_46 installer does not detect EFI labled disks?
Dennis Clarke wrote: Curious if others have seen this. I have a UltraSparc system with 14 disks. Six of them were part of a zpool and they all have EFI labels. The others do not. The installer presents none of the EFI labeled disks to me as being available. I choose the typical c0t0d0s0 in any case but all the disks on controller c1 are totally absent. We don't have any support for EFI labels in installation yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_46 installer does not detect EFI labled disks?
Dennis Clarke wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: Curious if others have seen this. I have a UltraSparc system with 14 disks. Six of them were part of a zpool and they all have EFI labels. The others do not. The installer presents none of the EFI labeled disks to me as being available. I choose the typical c0t0d0s0 in any case but all the disks on controller c1 are totally absent. We don't have any support for EFI labels in installation yet. Well that answers that ! Any plans ? It's on the list, but not being actively worked on. An answer I have to give way too often for my, or anyone else's, satisfaction, I know :-( Is this an issue related to GRUB and support for a ZFS boot ? The most difficult problem on SPARC is that OBP knows how to read SMI labels, but not EFI. ZFS boot support isn't expected to change this, at least in its initial version, as we can just put an SMI label and VTOC on and use ZFS within that structure, rather than pooling the whole disk directly using EFI as ZFS would prefer. The pieces will come together eventually to use EFI directly, but I don't know when. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] snv_46 installer gets burped by SendMail .. again ..
Dennis Clarke wrote: Dennis Clarke wrote: http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/GNOME/snv_46_installer_SendMail_burp.png Is there a bug filed against this somewhere ? Its annoying as all hell to have to move my mouse around to try to find the real window and then continue the install. I can't find it now, but I thought there was one on the console output not being captured during the install. The bigger bug I see there though is why is sendmail running during the install at all? Thats an entirely different question. Which you've actually answered below: it's because you're doing a CD install and it's on the continuation after CD1 has been installed and the reboot to the new OS has occurred. So sendmail running is entirely normal. We still shouldn't be letting sendmail's whining through to the console. I don't see an obvious open bug that captures it, so please file one. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] list applied patches for Solaris 8 9
Dennis Clarke wrote: Hi, I need to find out what patches I have on a Solaris 8 and 9 systems. Can anyone tell me what command I can use? I tried showrev -p and I got a huge output. If that is the best command to use... how do I decipher the output to get a list of patches that have been applied to the system. Thanks ...e Patches get applied almot as if they are packages. You will find a complete list of the patches in /var/sadm/patch and if you look there with ls -ltr then you will get a cronological order. If you just ls in the ordinary way then you get the list of all patches as well as the previous revs of the patches applied. Careful. patchadd -p or showrev -p are the supported interfaces. Everything else is implementation detail that we will not commit to supporting. It's unclear to me how the output of showrev -p is difficult to decipher; if all you want is the patch numbers, then: showrev -p|cut -f2 -d' ' will do the job right. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCR is now 6 CDs
Matt Williamson wrote: Bill Rushmore wrote: This might be a kind of crazy idea and I am not sure if it is even possible. But couldn't a public flash http server be setup? So all that would be needed would be an initial install CD. Then during then install the necessary packages can be downloaded from the public flash server(s)? Is this feasible? If it is I'll be happy to put in a RFE. sounds totally feasible to me. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/install/files/caiman_arch.pdf alludes to flars Yes, it's feasible. There's no reason to file an RFE, it's something we're considering as evidenced by the link above. One problem is that it's extra release-engineering work to produce the flar's, yet doing so doesn't address upgrades (obviously quite important to existing community users) unless we're also producing differential archives (even more release-engineering work, and we would obviously have limits on the combinations we'd product) or providing other means of performing an upgrade without having to download everything. Flash has some nice features and I'd like to use it more, but I'm not going to get a lot of support for spending on infrastructure that addresses only one piece of the lifecycle without a plan to leverage it into the rest. We're not there yet. Dave ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
