Re: SUNWspro stuff
On Jan 27, 2008 12:29 PM, Aubrey Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 4:38 AM, Tim Spriggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great :) .deb is my favorite package format. You'll need a changes file to upload to the Nexenta repository. It should be generated automatically when you build a package from sources. I'm curious to know how you built this package without building it from a source? unrar is in non-free category. I got it from here. http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm So, no sources, I built it manually, and no changes file. Can't dput deal with this kind of case? If so, is there another way to upload the package? Hi Tim, Any update or suggestion about my question? ;-) Thanks, -Aubrey ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Aubrey Li wrote: Hi Tim, On Jan 25, 2008 1:52 PM, Tim Spriggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Aubrey, 1) If you add the CSW sources [1] you can install the csw mercurial. Beyond that, if you compile hg from ubuntu sources you can submit the buildable source via dput for inclusion into the Nexenta repository. I'm new to deb. But I love it, ;-) I tried to build a deb package. See the attachment. Since it's not built from the source, I don't have .changes file. How to upload it? And, do you have a detail and handy instruction about how to obtain ubuntu package to convert to nexenta package? I know this is difficult. You have to check the dependency manually. Is that right? 4) screen is a good replacement and works on more than just the console. But the default session is console. I tried to install x-window and start it, but it doesn't work. Any clue? Thanks, -Aubrey Great :) .deb is my favorite package format. You'll need a changes file to upload to the Nexenta repository. It should be generated automatically when you build a package from sources. I'm curious to know how you built this package without building it from a source? I just created a wiki page with the basic steps to porting a package. As you run into difficulty feel free to update the page or let me know and I'll try to help and update the page as well. http://www.nexenta.org/os/BuildingPackages As far as X is concerned, I'm not sure as I don't use X on my servers but you should probably check the x configuration. Also, it is just X and not a display manager/window manager. Thanks, -Tim ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Hi Aubrey, 1) If you add the CSW sources [1] you can install the csw mercurial. Beyond that, if you compile hg from ubuntu sources you can submit the buildable source via dput for inclusion into the Nexenta repository. 2) This can be downloaded from the opensolaris website. Again, patches/packages are welcome. 3) There is a csw version of csope available. 4) screen is a good replacement and works on more than just the console. 5) Erast might have a more definitive answer, I would imagine this is the base system requirements + approximate size of Nexenta Installer footprint? If you truly intend to develop on OpenSolaris then I would recommend a lot more than 384MB RAM. ZFS is memory hungry and according to [2] you should have at least 1GB memory for ZFS filesystems. Thanks, -Tim [1] deb http://www.nexenta.org/apt/ elatte-unstable csw [2] http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#Memory_and_Swap_Space Aubrey Li wrote: I really want to make nexenta to be a development platform. So, besides Sun Studio, I'd like to the following package are added. 1) ON source tools: Mercurial 2) ON Specific Build Tools: SUNWonbld.i386.tar.bz2 3) cscope: browse ON source code 4) I know multi-console is removed from solaris, if the default terminal is console, not X, I want the multi-console to be back. 5) memory requirement. I noticed nexenta installation needs at least 384M memory. Otherwise the installation failed. How is this value determined? why so big? why not 256M? Thanks, -Aubrey ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 13:37 +0800, Aubrey Li wrote: I really want to make nexenta to be a development platform. So, besides Sun Studio, I'd like to the following package are added. 1) ON source tools: Mercurial done (in unstable now) 2) ON Specific Build Tools: SUNWonbld.i386.tar.bz2 doesn't make sense without actual fixes for ON tree to be build-able on NCP... 3) cscope: browse ON source code done (in unstable now) 4) I know multi-console is removed from solaris, if the default terminal is console, not X, I want the multi-console to be back. will wait till actual VC integration... 5) memory requirement. I noticed nexenta installation needs at least 384M memory. Otherwise the installation failed. How is this value determined? why so big? why not 256M? fixed. Thanks, -Aubrey ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Brandorr wrote: Martin, I have cc'ed Kuldip Oberoi into this discussion, as we have had preliminary talks on the possibility of getting a redistribution license. Cheers, Brian Hello Kuldip, Is there any new development on being able to distribute the SunPro compiler suite with Nexenta? I would really like to add the compilers into the distribution since a lot of packages require Sun's cc to compile under Solaris/OpenSolaris. Please let me know what I can do to help with this at all. Thanks, -Tim ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Tim Spriggs wrote: Martin Man wrote: upstream will not help us here, as this is solaris specific problem, only as soon as the sunwspro will be packaged for let's say ubuntu, then the conflict with binutils will become apparent enough to be treated important... until then we have to cope with it in nexenta... HTH, Martin I figured it might be difficult, as long as there is a clean way around it I am happy. I was really hoping to avoid patching/recompiling the gcc stuff :) don't worry, from my experience you don't need to touch conflicting packages, only the one that is yours (sunwspro) and you can influence how it will behave on the system wrt/ conflicting packages. -Tim HTH, Martin ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Tim, that's great, let's make sure this hits the distro once we are stabilized again... I think there are some license negotiations happening so one day the binary redistribution might be possible and we might ship the brinaries... great, thanx, Martin Tim Spriggs wrote: So, I finally got irritated enough to do it, if anyone is interested: add to your sources.list: deb-src http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~tims/nexenta/repos/ experimental . and then: apt-get update apt-get source sunwspro cd sunwspro-12 dpkg-buildpackage -b This requires that you have manually downloaded the sunwspro package install tar.bz2 file. dpkg-buildpackage -b will build all of the packages in the parent directory. It's up to you to install them. If you have a personal repository then that's probably the way to go ;) -Tim ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
On 8/21/07, Martin Man [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Spriggs wrote: It would be really nice if we could ship the binaries. It takes a really long time to download, build, then install in the current scheme. Installation from the already built packages is at least an order or two of magnitude faster. There is one/two sticky points: Unpacking sprosslnk (from .../sprosslnk_12-1_solaris-i386.deb) ... dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/c89', which is also in package gcc dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/c99', which is also in package gcc dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/c++filt', which is also in package binutils Setting up sprosslnk (12-1) ... I'm not sure in how to deal with this directly. Alternatives popped into mind but the files are not currently configured as alternatives in gcc/binutils. the better way are diversions, see dpkg-divert, are you installing into /usr/ ? I thought that sunwspro goes into /opt/SUNWspro by default and thus does not conflict with anything (read: I have not had a time to play with your package yet)... Is it appropriate to ask upstream to make this types of modification? I'm unsure of the likely success I would have in doing such... upstream will not help us here, as this is solaris specific problem, only as soon as the sunwspro will be packaged for let's say ubuntu, then the conflict with binutils will become apparent enough to be treated important... until then we have to cope with it in nexenta... Martin, I have cc'ed Kuldip Oberoi into this discussion, as we have had preliminary talks on the possibility of getting a redistribution license. Cheers, Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
Re: SUNWspro stuff
Martin Man wrote: the better way are diversions, see dpkg-divert, are you installing into /usr/ ? I thought that sunwspro goes into /opt/SUNWspro by default and thus does not conflict with anything (read: I have not had a time to play with your package yet)... It's mostly in /opt/SUNWspro but there are some small things that leak into /usr. I'll check out diversions tomorrow night, I'm busy doing a long migration tonight. upstream will not help us here, as this is solaris specific problem, only as soon as the sunwspro will be packaged for let's say ubuntu, then the conflict with binutils will become apparent enough to be treated important... until then we have to cope with it in nexenta... HTH, Martin I figured it might be difficult, as long as there is a clean way around it I am happy. I was really hoping to avoid patching/recompiling the gcc stuff :) -Tim ___ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
