Re: [osol-discuss] What happened to genunix.org?
On 02/01/12 10:06, Cathleen Reiher wrote: I had some troubleshooting material about the Solaris CIFS project published on genunix.org. I tried to get to it yesterday, and it's vanished! Is there any way for me to retrieve my content so that I can publish it in an alternate way? Thanks! You can try getting the content using web.archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110726090512/http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] What happened to genunix.org?
On 02/01/12 12:44, Will Fiveash wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:16:10AM -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: On 02/01/12 10:06, Cathleen Reiher wrote: I had some troubleshooting material about the Solaris CIFS project published on genunix.org. I tried to get to it yesterday, and it's vanished! Is there any way for me to retrieve my content so that I can publish it in an alternate way? Thanks! You can try getting the content using web.archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110726090512/http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page When I used the above to search for a webpage that I had bookmarked as: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Cheatsheet I get: Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived. http://web.archive.org/web/20100906114728/http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_Cheatsheet -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 install trouble, NVIDIA
On 11/10/11 18:09, Paul Gress wrote: Following previous messages, to get Solaris Express 11 updated I had to run: pkg uninstall 'pkg://opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://jucr.opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://Multimedia/*' \ 'pkg://kdeips-dev/*' \ 'pkg://ips.enst.fr/*' This basically cleaned out all the troublesome packages. I am a little disappointed have had to remove KDE. Yes, you'll have to remove it until they update the packages. I believe someone else already responded that you need to use the newest nVidia driver -- either the one included or the one on nVidia's website currently. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pfexec does not work any longer
On 11/11/11 10:55, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/12/11 06:52 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: On 11/11/11 09:37, Andrew Watkins wrote: Now on Solaris 11 it does not: == grep andrew /etc/user_attr andrewprofiles=Primary Administrator;roles=root Solaris 11 no longer includes the Primary Administrator profile. So what is the equivalent? sudo is now the preferred default mechanism for authentication. It also caches the authentication for a short period before requiring it again. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/10/11 02:48, Rob McMahon wrote: On 09/11/2011 22:29, Shawn Walker wrote: I suggest someone adds a note on how to find and remove problematic opensolaris.org packages. I'm sure anyone who has a system which started life as an OpenSolaris box with have some. Just for reference for this searching and finding this thread: pkg uninstall 'pkg://opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/*' Uh-oh, this is getting messy: ... I'll persevere with unpicking this. You'll have to remove the ips.homeunix.com packages; they're busted: pkg uninstall 'pkg://opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://ips.homeunix.com/*' -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 11:11, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 07:13 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Brian, Try this one: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/E24456/upgrade-1.html The main OS 11 library (English) is here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/index.html Let us know how the upgrade goes. Is there an error on that page? # *Make sure your publisher is set as follows.* #*pkg publisher* PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI solaris origin online http://ipkg.us.oracle.com/solaris11/dev/ If you need to change your solaris publisher from a previous publisher with the same solaris name, use syntax similar to the following: # pkg set-publisher -g http://ipkg.us.oracle.com/solaris11/dev -G http://internal.co.com/solaris solaris Yes, that's wrong, I'll notify the appropriate parties. The URL should be: http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 12:39, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 07:13 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Brian, Try this one: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/E24456/upgrade-1.html The main OS 11 library (English) is here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/index.html Let us know how the upgrade goes. No joy for me :( pfexec pkg update Creating Plan \ pkg update: No solution was found to satisfy constraints Plan Creation: Package solver has not found a solution to update to latest available versions. This may indicate an overly constrained set of packages are installed. Try: pfexec pkg update '*@latest' That will tell the package system that you're trying to update to the latest version of all packages. It will then attempt to determine why it cannot do that. If you have *any* packages installed from opensolaris.org, you'll likely need to remove them. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 13:03, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 09:46 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 11/09/11 12:39, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 07:13 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Brian, Try this one: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/E24456/upgrade-1.html The main OS 11 library (English) is here: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/index.html Let us know how the upgrade goes. No joy for me :( pfexec pkg update Creating Plan \ pkg update: No solution was found to satisfy constraints Plan Creation: Package solver has not found a solution to update to latest available versions. This may indicate an overly constrained set of packages are installed. Try: pfexec pkg update '*@latest' That will tell the package system that you're trying to update to the latest version of all packages. It will then attempt to determine why it cannot do that. If you have *any* packages installed from opensolaris.org, you'll likely need to remove them. I guess these are the culprits: pfexec pkg update '*@latest' Creating Plan | pkg update: No matching version of gnome-photo-printer can be installed: Reject: pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/gnome-photo-printer@0.6.5,5.11-0.111:20091204T201935Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWgnome-print@0.5.11,5.11-0.111 are obsolete No matching version of openoffice can be installed: Reject: pkg://opensolaris.org/openoffice@3.1.0,5.11-0.111:20090518T062712Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWPython@2.4.4,5.11-0.111 are obsolete No matching version of virtualbox can be installed: Reject: pkg://extra/virtualbox@3.1.8,5.11-0.101:20100511T153708Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWPython25@2.5,5.11-0.101 are obsolete Yes, those would definitely cause an issue. Removing those packages should allow you to proceed. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 13:09, Ian Collins wrote: ... So there isn't an OpenOffice package for Solaris 11? At this time, there are no native OpenOffice packages available for Solaris 11. However, the tarball version available from openoffice.org should work just fine. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 13:48, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 10:08 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 11/09/11 13:03, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 09:46 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: Try: pfexec pkg update '*@latest' That will tell the package system that you're trying to update to the latest version of all packages. It will then attempt to determine why it cannot do that. If you have *any* packages installed from opensolaris.org, you'll likely need to remove them. I guess these are the culprits: pfexec pkg update '*@latest' Creating Plan | pkg update: No matching version of gnome-photo-printer can be installed: Reject: pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/gnome-photo-printer@0.6.5,5.11-0.111:20091204T201935Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWgnome-print@0.5.11,5.11-0.111 are obsolete No matching version of openoffice can be installed: Reject: pkg://opensolaris.org/openoffice@3.1.0,5.11-0.111:20090518T062712Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWPython@2.4.4,5.11-0.111 are obsolete No matching version of virtualbox can be installed: Reject: pkg://extra/virtualbox@3.1.8,5.11-0.101:20100511T153708Z Reason: All acceptable versions of 'require' dependency on pkg:/SUNWPython25@2.5,5.11-0.101 are obsolete Yes, those would definitely cause an issue. Removing those packages should allow you to proceed. So it does. I also had to remove wine, in response to pfexec pkg uninstall openoffice Creating Plan - pkg uninstall: The requested change to the system attempts to install multiple actions for dir 'usr/share/applications' with conflicting attributes: 1 package delivers 'dir group=bin mode=0755 owner=root path=usr/share/applications': pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/wine@1.0.1,5.11-0.101:20081209T223210Z 60 packages deliver 'dir group=other mode=0755 owner=root path=usr/share/applications', including: The wording in that error is a bit confusing, shouldn't to install be to uninstall? Some form of force option may help with these petty conflicts. The package system has to ensure the system is in a correct state. It can't do that unless it can guarantee that all packages agree on what the correct state. I know that sucks when you have broken packages, but it's the only way to ensure that pkg fix and pkg verify work as expected (among other things). That's why pkg doesn't have any force options. I hope some of the issues in this thread find their way into the release notes to assist others. The contrib repositories are all long gone as noted by the web page up there now. Sorry about the troubles, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle Solaris 11 - The First Cloud OS
On 11/09/11 14:22, Ian Collins wrote: On 11/10/11 11:17 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 11/09/11 13:48, Ian Collins wrote: So it does. I also had to remove wine, in response to pfexec pkg uninstall openoffice Creating Plan - pkg uninstall: The requested change to the system attempts to install multiple actions for dir 'usr/share/applications' with conflicting attributes: 1 package delivers 'dir group=bin mode=0755 owner=root path=usr/share/applications': pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/wine@1.0.1,5.11-0.101:20081209T223210Z 60 packages deliver 'dir group=other mode=0755 owner=root path=usr/share/applications', including: The wording in that error is a bit confusing, shouldn't to install be to uninstall? Some form of force option may help with these petty conflicts. The package system has to ensure the system is in a correct state. It can't do that unless it can guarantee that all packages agree on what the correct state. I know that sucks when you have broken packages, but it's the only way to ensure that pkg fix and pkg verify work as expected (among other things). That's why pkg doesn't have any force options. I see, that makes sense. Please note that you shouldn't have this problem when upgrading again in the future because the conflict checking logic pkg now has wouldn't have allowed you to install the packages in the first place. I hope some of the issues in this thread find their way into the release notes to assist others. The contrib repositories are all long gone as noted by the web page up there now. I suggest someone adds a note on how to find and remove problematic opensolaris.org packages. I'm sure anyone who has a system which started life as an OpenSolaris box with have some. Just for reference for this searching and finding this thread: pkg uninstall 'pkg://opensolaris.org/*' \ 'pkg://contrib.opensolaris.org/*' -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Trying to install packages in Solaris 11 EA
On 11/08/11 05:38, Jordi wrote: Hi all, I'm plying with Solaris 11 EA, but I'm getting all the time this errors when I'm triying to install some package: jespasac@solaris11ea:~$ sudo pkg install pkg:/slim_install@0.1-0.151.0.1 Creating Plan | pkg install: No matching version of slim_install can be installed: Reject: pkg://solaris/slim_install@0.1,5.11-0.151.0.1:20101105T060722Z Reason: All versions matching 'require' dependency pkg:/release/getting-started/locale/zh_cn@0.5.11,5.11-0.151.0.1 are rejected Reject: pkg://solaris/release/getting-started/locale/zh_cn@0.5.11,5.11-0.151.0.1:20101105T060219Z Reason: This version is excluded by installed incorporation pkg://solaris/consolidation/gnome/gnome-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.173.0.0.0.0.0:20110828T023717 jespasac@solaris11ea:~$ sudo pkg install pkg://solaris/developer/versioning/subversion Creating Plan | pkg install: No matching version of developer/versioning/subversion can be installed: Reject: pkg://solaris/developer/versioning/subversion@1.6.5,5.11-0.151.0.1:20101105T053857Z Reason: This version is excluded by installed incorporation pkg://solaris/consolidation/userland/userland-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.173.0.0.0.0.487:20110827T221139Z Obviously pkg(1) doesn't want to install those packages... but I don't get why. Can someone point me put to the right direction? The package system is trying to tell you that none of the versions of packages available are suitable for your system -- they're too old. That is because the EA release of Solaris 11 Express isn't available from the public package repositories (pkg.oracle.com) as noted in the download materials. If you want to install packages, you need to download the repository ISO images provided and provision them according to the included README. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pkg unexpectedly dies.
On 10/22/11 12:47, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
Hello. I'm trying to remove gnome packages recursively on OI_151. pkg
dies unexpectedly. See below. It recommends to register bug at
http://defect.opensolaris.org but I'm not sure illumos and openindiana
projects still use opensolaris.org site and its BTS.
Comments?
...
File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/cfgfiles.py, line 172, in
removevalue
del self.index[tuple(template[k] for k in self.keys)]
KeyError: ('svctag',)
pkg: This is an internal error. Please let the developers know about this
problem by filing a bug at http://defect.opensolaris.org and including the
above traceback and this message. The version of pkg(5) is '1d7f906c77c1'.
This error has been fixed in a newer version of pkg:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13907
However, in your case, I don't believe you want to do what you're doing.
uninstall -r is unlikely to produce the result you really want (which is
one of the reasons why -r doesn't exist in newer versions of pkg(5)).
Try running the command again, but with -nv, and see what packages it
wants to remove. I'm betting that you'll see a package being removed
you didn't expect.
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] New update of Solaris 11, how is it?
On 10/10/11 11:45, Orvar Korvar wrote: Regarding Containers, are they sparse yet? And as someone pointed out, S11 is coming in november. http://www.oracle.com/webapps/events/ns/EventsDetail.jsp?p_eventId=140654src=7255745src=7255745Act=27 Solaris 11 does not support sparse zones. My understanding is that sparse zones were an implementation artifiact of support for diskless systems and when a split '/' and '/usr' was an expected norm. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS publisher help
On 04/26/11 08:38 AM, Andre Lue wrote: Building an ips image, I start from snv_134 http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev. I then upgrade this to illumos bits from a local nightly illumos repo. What I don't understand is why no update will take place from snv_134 to snv_148/illumos nightly unless I add http://pkg.openindiana.org/dev as an optional publisher and remove the opensolaris.org publisher. PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI on-nightly (preferred) origin online http://localhost:1/ pkg refresh --full pkg image-update No updates available for this image. # 2nd attempt after adding openindiana.org PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI on-nightly (preferred) origin online http://localhost:1/ openindiana.org origin online http://pkg.openindiana.org/dev/ update starts and completes fine with source binaries from illumos nightly repo. I'm trying to understand why I need the openindiana.org publisher and for what? Shawn if you're out there, thanks in advance. Because on-nightly alone isn't enough to upgrade your system. 'on-nightly' has dependencies on things in the 'WOS', such as Python and others that are only available from openindiana.org's repository. The solver in older builds such as the one you're using doesn't clearly express the failure, but essentially, it's telling you no updates available because it can't update you any farther because you're missing dependencies that would allow you to. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS: package versioning
On 04/21/11 11:36 AM, M I wrote: I was able to create an IPS server for our out-of-box driver that allows our test engineers to download/install it to their test systems. One problem I am having is that our out-of-box driver version numbers are alpha-numeric. Unfortunately IPS only allows strictly numeric version numbers. E.G. it should allow driver version 10.15a. As it is now, the driver will not post with an alpha-numeric version string. Is this a change that may be forthcoming? It's impractical to perform consistent version ordering that works the way each package creator expects with non-numeric characters in the version. As such, there are no plans to implement support for non-numeric characters in package versions. Why do you need this support? -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS: package versioning
On 04/21/11 01:05 PM, M I wrote: Fair enough, Shawn. Up until now, our Solaris driver builds had version numbers like 1.00a, 1.00b, etc. but for future builds we will look at changing the version numbers to something like 1.00.0, 1.00.1, etc. We wanted alphanumeric support so that we could continue with the same version number scheme that we had been using with previous versions of Solaris - before Open Solaris was introduced. To meet IPS requirements, we will go ahead and switch to a fully numeric version scheme. I believe there is intent to add support for a custom version string that's used for display purposes only, but otherwise, yes, it's best you switch to a numeric versioning system. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS question?
- sik3...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Shawn, Stuck a bit further down the road. I added the following packages to satisfy some other dependencies and now pkg.depotd crashes on a --rebuild. ... pkg://opensolaris.org/SUNWapr13@1.3.9,5.11-0.133:20100216T061634Z Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/pkg.depotd, line 786, in module repo.rebuild(build_index=True) File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/server/repository.py, line 2434, in rebuild build_index=build_index) File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/server/repository.py, line 1436, in rebuild build_index=build_index) File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/server/repository.py, line 617, in __rebuild f = self.__fmri_from_path(pkgpath[0], e) File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/server/repository.py, line 410, in __fmri_from_path v = pkg.version.Version(urllib.unquote(ver), None) File /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/pkg/version.py, line 305, in __init__ raise IllegalVersion(Bad Version: %s % e) pkg.version.IllegalVersion: Bad Version: .0.5.11 The server is more resilient against this in newer versions of pkg(5). Regardless, the problem above is that one of your packages has a corrupt manifest. You should grep for '.0.5.11' in the $REPODIR/pkg/* directories. You'll need to remove that package manifest and then rebuild again. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How do I remove a package from my repository?
- sik3...@yahoo.com wrote: Creating a custom repository I have come across the need to remove a package. Can someone say how I would remove a package from a local repository? There's no tool to do this available yet (I'm actually in the process of writing it). With that said, you just need to remove the manifest of the package you want to remove and then rebuild the repository. That will leave the files behind used by the package, but that won't hurt anything. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS question?
On 03/ 2/11 06:51 AM, Andre Lue wrote: Hi Shawn, Thanks for the reply. The cmd below returns pkg install -nv SUNWcs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 system/library library/zlib system/zones library/libxml2 system/kernel library/math runtime/perl-584 system/file-system/zfs system/library/libdiskmgt libtecla system/boot/grub Creating Plan /pkg: No version of library/libtecla can be installed: pkg://opensolaris.org/library/libtecla@1.6.0,5.11-0.134:20100302T034829Z: Suitable required dependency pkg:/system/library@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 cannot be found Try again, but using this command line this time: pkg install -nv SUNWcs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/library@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ library/zlib@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/zones@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ library/libxml2@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/kernel@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ library/math@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ runtime/perl-584@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/file-system/zfs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/library/libdiskmgt@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ libtecla@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/boot/grub@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS question?
On 03/ 1/11 03:40 PM, Andre Lue wrote: Hi Shawn, Thanks for the reply. I got a bit further pulling back packages and making own repository. However I am not sure what is missing at this stage. I have verified all the requires on this list are in the repo. Any help is greatly appreciated. pkg install -vn SUNWcs Creating Plan -pkg: No solution was found to satisfy constraints package solver error attempted operation: install proposed pkgs: SUNWcs pkg://opensolaris.org/SUNWcs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T005446Z require: consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T010625Z require: system/library@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/library@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T054928Z require: library/zlib@1.2.3-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/library/zlib@1.2.3,5.11-0.134:20100302T041530Z require: system/zones@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/zones@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T070628Z require: library/libxml2@2.7.6-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/library/libxml2@2.7.6,5.11-0.134:20100302T034919Z require: system/kernel@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/kernel@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T054451Z require: system/library/math@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/library/math@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T055623Z require: runtime/perl-584@5.8.4-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/runtime/perl-584@5.8.4,5.11-0.134:20100302T044700Z require: system/file-system/zfs@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/file-system/zfs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T051852Z require: system/library/libdiskmgt@0.5.11-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/library/libdiskmgt@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T055513Z require: library/libtecla@1.6.0-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/library/libtecla@1.6.0,5.11-0.134:20100302T034829Z require: system/boot/grub@0.97-0.134 Requires one of: pkg://opensolaris.org/system/boot/grub@0.97,5.11-0.134:20100302T051028Z maintained incorporations: None Unfortunately, the version of pkg(5) you're using doesn't show the error messaging you need to see without some assistance. You'll likely be able to get more information by naming all of the packages that installing SUNWcs requires: pkg install -nv SUNWcs@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ osnet-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.134 \ system/library library/zlib \ system/zones library/libxml2 system/kernel library/math \ runtime/perl-584 system/file-system/zfs \ system/library/libdiskmgmt libtecla system/boot/grub Try that and see if you get a different set of error messages, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] IPS question?
On 02/12/11 04:38 PM, Andre Lue wrote: if I wish to build an image from openindiana.org, as such pkg image-create -F -a openindiana.org=http://pkg.openindiana.org/dev /image doing a package install of pkg install SUNWcs returns the error Creating Plan -pkg: No version of SUNWcsl can be installed: pkg://openindiana.org/SUNWcsl@0.5.11,5.11-0.133:20100914T033149Z: Suitable required dependency pkg:/system/library@0.5.11,5.11-0.133 cannot be found Is there a way to force install or break this required dependency on 133/134 package? No, by design, it is not possible to ignore dependencies. If you want to alter the package, you must retrieve it with pkgrecv, change the manifest, and then republish it to your own repository. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] unable to install pkg due to dependancies
- solar...@gmail.com wrote: hello all, i recently upgraded from b111 to b134, but i hve a strange problem to install new pkgs: henry@electre:~$ pfexec pkg install rdesktop Creating Plan \Planning for install failed: Use -v option for more details pkg: No version of desktop/remote-desktop/rdesktop can be installed: pkg:// opensolaris.org/desktop/remote-desktop/rdesktop@0.5.11,5.11-0.134.0.2:20100528T231526Z : Suitable required dependency pkg:/library/security/ openssl@0.9.8.14 ,5.11-0.134.0.2 cannot be found henry@electre:~$ pfexec pkg install pkg:/library/security/ openssl@0.9.8.14 ,5.11-0.134.0.2 Creating Plan /Planning for install failed: Use -v option for more details pkg: No matching version of library/security/openssl can be installed: pkg:// opensolaris.org/library/security/openssl@0.9.8.14,5.11-0.134.0.2:20100529T001415Z : This version is excluded by installed incorporation pkg:// opensolaris.org/consolidation/sfw/sfw-incorporation@0.5.11,5.11-0.134:20100302T010637Z I don't understand what's happen? how can i solve it? The short version is your system is running 134, but build 134b (134.0.2) is available in the repository. You need to perform an image-update again and reboot. After that, you should be able to install rdesktop without issue. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] errors from update-refresh.sh cron job
On 01/22/11 05:17 PM, Bill Shannon wrote: Any idea what causes this? Your cron job on datsunx /usr/lib/update-manager/update-refresh.sh produced the following output: /usr/lib/python2.6/vendor-packages/gtk-2.0/gtk/__init__.py:57: GtkWarning: could not open display warnings.warn(str(e), _gtk.Warning) GConf Error: Failed to contact configuration server; some possible causes are that you need to enable TCP/IP networking for ORBit, or you have stale NFS locks due to a system crash. See http://projects.gnome.org/gconf/ for information. (Details - 1: Not running within active session) /usr/bin/pm-updatemanager:93: GtkWarning: file gtkicontheme.c: line 317: assertion `GDK_IS_SCREEN (screen)' failed self.icon_theme = gtk.icon_theme_get_default() Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/pm-updatemanager, line 408, in module set_check_all, set_check_cache) File /usr/bin/pm-updatemanager, line 95, in __init__ self.icon_theme.append_search_path(pkg_icon_location) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'append_search_path' I don't see a bug filed for this, so you could file one at http://defect.opensolaris.org/ under development - pkg - gui. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] songbird bug
On 12/ 8/10 01:13 PM, Paul Gress wrote: On 12/ 8/10 02:23 PM, Mike DeMarco wrote: When I upgraded from b134 to b151a Songbird hit a bug that makes it play the second song over and over again. I tried to go into the b134 repository and download that version but even though I as in the 134 repository my system kept installing from the b151 repository. How can I install from an older repository? Thanks mike Try clicking on install from here: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/en/search.shtml?token=songbirdaction=Search That won't work. The install links provided there are intentionally not versioned so that the user's system will determine the right version to install. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] songbird bug
On 12/ 8/10 11:23 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: When I upgraded from b134 to b151a Songbird hit a bug that makes it play the second song over and over again. I tried to go into the b134 repository and download that version but even though I as in the 134 repository my system kept installing from the b151 repository. How can I install from an older repository? You can't do this. The way the system is packaged currently intentionally prevents you from installing older versions on your system. In particular, given Songbird's tight integration with various Mozilla libraries, it would be unlikely to work anyway. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] intel wifi link 1000 driver
On 12/ 2/10 02:51 PM, Timmy Ewell wrote: Hello again. Just to clarify, I've been researching the answer for the last several months. I'm guessing the card is too new for Intel to release the source for the driver and the iwlwifi project is a work around. I normally don't post in forums for help because i know how particular communities can be about newbies (I used ArchLinux for my longest stint with distros). Posting in forums is usually my last resort so i can try and teach myself. Some help is all i'm looking for. Thanks for your response. The device ID for the WiFi Link 1000 doesn't appear in either the iwp or iwh driver source: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=sc_dev_idproject=onnvpath=%2Fonnv%2Fonnv-gate%2Fusr%2Fsrc%2Futs%2Fcommon%2Fio So my guess is that it is not supported yet. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/30/10 02:07 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
On 11/29/10 20:00, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 11/26/10 06:48 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
On 11/23/10 18:42, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 11/23/10 09:58 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
Is there a way to list packages that are going to cause problems? The
upgrade I have just done appears to have completed but when booted
show it still on 134b/
No, because that package system doesn't know what packages are a
problem. The package system intentionally allows you to install
and/or
create packages that constrain your system in a way that prevents
all or
certain parts of it from upgrading.
That's necessary functionality so that your system can be upgraded
properly from build to build.
However, it also means that it can't automatically determine when your
system should have been upgraded and when it should not be. It only
knows what the packages you installed tell it.
With that said, you can tell it what you expect to happen by doing
things like this:
pkg install -nv ent...@0.5.11-0.151 \
`pkg list -H | grep 'consolidation/*incorporation' |\
awk '{print $1@0.5.11-0.151}'` 21 /tmp/pkg.debug
Then check the output like this:
grep -e FAIL -e incompatible /tmp/pkg.debug
If the grep produces anything, you'll need to look at the log file and
read through to determine what went wrong.
If the grep didn't produce anything, you likely didn't configure your
system according to the release notes. Check the configuration of your
publishers, verify that everything matches the release notes, and try
again.
-Shawn
I don't think there is anything that is contrary to the release notes.
kr...@cores2-dm-dev:~$ pkg install -nv ent...@0.5.11-0.151 \
`pkg list -H | grep 'consolidation/*incorporation' |\
awk '{print $1@0.5.11-0.151}'` 21 /tmp/pkg.debug
pkg: No solution was found to satisfy constraints
kr...@cores2-dm-dev:~$ grep -e FAIL -e incompatible /tmp/pkg.debug
grep: illegal option -- e
Use 'ggrep' instead of 'grep' here. Sorry, the -e option is GNU grep
specific; forgot about that.
I did that (well used /usr/gnu/bin/grep ) and it was in my email:
Can you post /tmp/pkg.debug somewhere?
Clearly, there is something more to your case then is immediately obvious.
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] How stop software autobooting?
On 11/29/10 10:19 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote: When I login I see several instances of VirtualBox starting. I dont want that. How can I stop them from booting? After logging in, close all open windows, and then: * go to the Applications menu at the top-left corner * click 'Run Application' * type 'gnome-session-save' * click 'Run' Now logout, login, and verify that it no longer automatically launches. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/26/10 06:48 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
On 11/23/10 18:42, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 11/23/10 09:58 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
Is there a way to list packages that are going to cause problems? The
upgrade I have just done appears to have completed but when booted
show it still on 134b/
No, because that package system doesn't know what packages are a
problem. The package system intentionally allows you to install and/or
create packages that constrain your system in a way that prevents all or
certain parts of it from upgrading.
That's necessary functionality so that your system can be upgraded
properly from build to build.
However, it also means that it can't automatically determine when your
system should have been upgraded and when it should not be. It only
knows what the packages you installed tell it.
With that said, you can tell it what you expect to happen by doing
things like this:
pkg install -nv ent...@0.5.11-0.151 \
`pkg list -H | grep 'consolidation/*incorporation' |\
awk '{print $1@0.5.11-0.151}'` 21 /tmp/pkg.debug
Then check the output like this:
grep -e FAIL -e incompatible /tmp/pkg.debug
If the grep produces anything, you'll need to look at the log file and
read through to determine what went wrong.
If the grep didn't produce anything, you likely didn't configure your
system according to the release notes. Check the configuration of your
publishers, verify that everything matches the release notes, and try
again.
-Shawn
I don't think there is anything that is contrary to the release notes.
kr...@cores2-dm-dev:~$ pkg install -nv ent...@0.5.11-0.151 \
`pkg list -H | grep 'consolidation/*incorporation' |\
awk '{print $1@0.5.11-0.151}'` 21 /tmp/pkg.debug
pkg: No solution was found to satisfy constraints
kr...@cores2-dm-dev:~$ grep -e FAIL -e incompatible /tmp/pkg.debug
grep: illegal option -- e
Use 'ggrep' instead of 'grep' here. Sorry, the -e option is GNU grep
specific; forgot about that.
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/23/10 09:58 AM, Chris Gerhard wrote:
Is there a way to list packages that are going to cause problems? The upgrade
I have just done appears to have completed but when booted show it still on
134b/
No, because that package system doesn't know what packages are a
problem. The package system intentionally allows you to install
and/or create packages that constrain your system in a way that prevents
all or certain parts of it from upgrading.
That's necessary functionality so that your system can be upgraded
properly from build to build.
However, it also means that it can't automatically determine when your
system should have been upgraded and when it should not be. It only
knows what the packages you installed tell it.
With that said, you can tell it what you expect to happen by doing
things like this:
pkg install -nv ent...@0.5.11-0.151 \
`pkg list -H | grep 'consolidation/*incorporation' |\
awk '{print $1@0.5.11-0.151}'` 21 /tmp/pkg.debug
Then check the output like this:
grep -e FAIL -e incompatible /tmp/pkg.debug
If the grep produces anything, you'll need to look at the log file and
read through to determine what went wrong.
If the grep didn't produce anything, you likely didn't configure your
system according to the release notes. Check the configuration of your
publishers, verify that everything matches the release notes, and try again.
-Shawn
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] upgrade woes, snv_132 - snv_147 - snv_149
On 11/22/10 04:18 AM, Ken Berry wrote: Hi Shawn I am having the similar problem. laptop at snv-148 use GUI Package Manager This is an Live Image. The install operation can't be performed I can OpenConnect or Punchin VPN to Oracle in UK Where is the best place to find the solution? In your case, the best option is to not use the package manager. Use the CLI to update instead: pfexec pkg image-update -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/19/10 11:30 AM, Jose Chung wrote: Hi, I've got the same problem. After upgrading to 134b as per the http://blogs.sun.com/observatory/entry/upgrading_from_opensolaris_2009_06 instructions I've hit a brick wall. Here's some output; # pkg publisher PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI solaris (preferred) origin online http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release/ opensolaris.org (non-sticky) origin online http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/ extra(non-sticky) origin online https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/ # pkg image-update No updates available for this image. # uname -a SunOS deckard 5.11 snv_134b i86pc i386 i86pc Any ideas appreciated. Do you have any postgre database packages installed? If so, remove them. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/19/10 04:08 PM, Steven Acres wrote: ... Specifically for Shawn: Isn't there somewhere that one of these folks can file a bug report on this? Seems there is a dep resolving issue with the pkg manager. Dependency resolution is working exactly as it is supposed to. However, the error messaging is confusing and this is being worked on. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/19/10 04:39 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 11/19/10 04:08 PM, Steven Acres wrote: ... Specifically for Shawn: Isn't there somewhere that one of these folks can file a bug report on this? Seems there is a dep resolving issue with the pkg manager. Dependency resolution is working exactly as it is supposed to. However, the error messaging is confusing and this is being worked on. Sorry, let me clarify. If I recall correctly, there were two *different* problems discussed in this thread. One problem was about a dependency that wasn't installed for a package and should have been. That was caused by a problem *in the package itself* not in packamanager; packagemanager obviously can't resolve dependencies that haven't been declared in the package. If you want to file a bug for the *package* missing a dependency, then do so at defect.opensolaris.org. The second item discussed in this thread was a message about no updates being available or a constraint error, and that's what my original response was referring to. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/19/10 05:48 PM, Steven Acres wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Shawn Walker shawn.wal...@oracle.com mailto:shawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: On 11/19/10 04:39 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 11/19/10 04:08 PM, Steven Acres wrote: ... Specifically for Shawn: Isn't there somewhere that one of these folks can file a bug report on this? Seems there is a dep resolving issue with the pkg manager. Dependency resolution is working exactly as it is supposed to. However, the error messaging is confusing and this is being worked on. Sorry, let me clarify. If I recall correctly, there were two *different* problems discussed in this thread. One problem was about a dependency that wasn't installed for a package and should have been. That was caused by a problem *in the package itself* not in packamanager; packagemanager obviously can't resolve dependencies that haven't been declared in the package. If you want to file a bug for the *package* missing a dependency, then do so at defect.opensolaris.org http://defect.opensolaris.org. The second item discussed in this thread was a message about no updates being available or a constraint error, and that's what my original response was referring to. -Shawn Thanks for that Shawn, fair enough. By ...error messaging being worked on, would part of that work be towards messages which offer a solution (i.e. Stuff with Foopkg is broken due to brokenness .. do you want to nuke Foopkg [y/n]?)? The best option for the package system is to try as hard as possible to tell you what it found, and then the user has decide what's wrong, and what action to take. Ultimately, the package system can't accurately determine what's wrong since it doesn't know what's right unless the user tells it. There are improvements being worked on to the messaging, but I'm not part of the group that works on the packagemanager so I can't tell you what they will do. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Can not use my own Solaris Express repository
On 11/17/10 11:51 PM, Willi Burmeister wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to use the Solaris 11 express repository in my local network without success. Here what I have done: Depot server - Updated to Solaris 11 express by hand % head -1 /etc/release Oracle Solaris 11 Express snv_151a X86 - created a new filesystem and made a copy of the iso image # zfs create -o mountpoint=/export/pkg zpool1/pkg # zfs set atime=off zpool1/pkg # rsync -aP /mnt/repo /export/pkg - created a new depot server # svccfg -s svc:/application/pkg/server add mirror # svccfg -s pkg/server:mirror addpg pkg application # svccfg -s pkg/server:mirror addpg start method # svccfg -s pkg/server:mirror setprop pkg/inst_root=/export/pkg/repo # svccfg -s pkg/server:mirror setprop pkg/port = 1 # svccfg -s pkg/server:mirror setprop pkg/readonly=true # svcadm refresh application/pkg/server:mirror # svcadm enable application/pkg/server:mirror I'm able to connect my browser to the repository and it tells me This repository serves a copy of the Oracle Solaris 11 Express 2010.11 Package repository. Information about packages is not available when the. server is operating in mirror mode. That's the hint here. Did you set pkg/mirror=true in SMF? If so, it needs to be set to pkg/mirror=false. Once you do that, refresh and restart the service. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] meld - missing a dependency
On 11/18/10 05:49 AM, Paul Griffith wrote: FYI Just for the record, I filed a bug report. I just installed meld, but it refuses to run, shouldn't Package Manager pull in any dependencies meld needs to run. Yes, and it will if the package declares them. It can't install dependencies it doesn't know about :) -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] solaris 11 express and xvm
On 11/16/10 01:04 AM, Bruno Damour wrote: Hello, In the repository (http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release) I see : system/x...@0.5.11,5.11-0.151.0.1:20101105T061852Z system/virti...@0.5.11,5.11-0.151.0.1:20101105T061851Z ... Does that mean that xvm is supported to use solaris 11 express as Dom0 ? That would be a huge benefit for me, currently stuck with snv_134 The 32-bit dom0 hypervisor has been removed, per the release notes: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/821-1479/fbdtw?l=ena=view Other details regarding xvm usage can be found there as well. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 11 Express Repository - kinda bare
On 11/16/10 08:06 AM, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: did you download the repository or connect through the web? I have tried both and have problems both ways. Part B of the repository will not mount up under any filesystem type. after lofiadm the iso /dev/lofi/1 mount fails with not a hsfs filesystem. Part A works fine. You concatenate the two parts and mount the resulting .iso file - just fine. They're actually separate ISO files -- not a physical file split. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/16/10 10:17 AM, Eli Kleinman wrote: Please help, I am trying to upgrade opensolaris b134 to solaris11 express. I followed the Oracle docs at http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/821-1479/gklaa?l=ena=view with no luck. Any help is greatly appreciated, below are the steps I tried. Going from b134 to b134b (5.11-0.134.0.2) worked with out a problem, I then booted to the new be (sol11-1) ... I also tried image-update again after boot to the new be, but it tells me No updates available # pkg -R /sol11 image-update --accept No updates available for this image. I am not sure what I did wrong any help appreciated. Two things are needed to help you: 1) the output of 'pkg publisher' 2) the output of 'pkg list' -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/16/10 11:37 AM, Chris Ridd wrote: NAME (PUBLISHER) VERSION STATE UFOXI ... amp-dev 0.5.11-0.111installed - This is most likely the issue (assuming you've added the 'solaris' publisher as described in the release notes). Per the release notes: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/821-1479/fbdtw?l=ena=view ...PostgreSQL Versions 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 have been removed. As amp-dev depends on SUNWphp52-pgsql (a PHP PostgreSQL library) which depends on PostgreSQL, the package system is unable to move your system forward. It assumes you prefer to keep postgre, etc. working instead of updating it to a point where software stops working. Yes, the messaging could be better here, but it's very difficult to divine the intent of the user here. You'll need to remove amp-dev, all of the *php* and postgre packages. I believe that should allow you to upgrade (assuming there isn't some other package in the way). -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem upgrading b134 to solaris11 express
On 11/16/10 11:55 AM, Eli Kleinman wrote: Hi Shawn and thanks for the help, I booted back to my old boot environment, below is the output of the new boot environment. - I did a beadm mount sol11-2 /sol11 --- pkg -R /sol11 publisher PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI solaris (non-sticky, preferred) origin online http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release/ opensolaris.org (non-sticky) origin online http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/ contrib.opensolaris.org (non-sticky) origin online http://pkg.opensolaris.org/contrib/ pkg -R /sol11 list NAME (PUBLISHER) VERSION STATE UFOXI KDEbase-apps (mypkgs) 4.4.0-2 installed u KDEbase-runtime (mypkgs) 4.4.0-3 installed u KDEbase-workspace (mypkgs)4.4.0-2 installed u KDEgdm-integration (mypkgs) 4.4.0-0.132 installed u KDElibs (mypkgs) 4.4.0-2 installed u KDEoxygen-icons (mypkgs) 4.4.0-2 installed u KDEpimlibs (mypkgs) 4.4.0-3 installed u ... database/postgres-82 (opensolaris.org)8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/contrib (opensolaris.org) 8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/developer (opensolaris.org) 8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/documentation (opensolaris.org) 8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/language-bindings (opensolaris.org) 8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/library (opensolaris.org) 8.2.15-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-82/pgtcl (opensolaris.org) 1.5-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83 (opensolaris.org)8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/connector/jdbc (opensolaris.org) 8.3.603-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/contrib (opensolaris.org) 8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/developer (opensolaris.org) 8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/documentation (opensolaris.org) 8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/language-bindings (opensolaris.org) 8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/library (opensolaris.org) 8.3.9-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/pgbouncer (opensolaris.org) 1.1.2-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres-83/pgtcl (opensolaris.org) 1.5-0.134.0.2 installed u database/postgres/pgadmin (opensolaris.org) 1.10.0-0.134.0.2 installed u From what I recall, the KDE packages depend on postgre. As I pointed out to another poster, PostgreSQL 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 have been removed from Solaris 11 Express. You'll likely have to remove all postgre and KDE packages from your system to be able to upgrade. You'll also likely need to remove any packages installed from contrib. Contrib is non-functional at this point (as far as I know), and I suspect packages from there might also prevent an upgrade. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 11 Express is out
On 11/15/10 11:03 AM, Karel Gardas wrote: interesting would be to know if the upgrade from OS 2009.06 is working well or not. Yes, the process is described here and was noted in the release announcement: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/821-1479/gklaa?l=ena=view -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Update/patch policy?
On 11/15/10 05:35 PM, Sean M. Brannon wrote: What is the update/patch policy for Express? i.e. is an Oracle support contract required to gain access to Solaris 11 Express software/security updates? Page seven of the release notes refers to accessing information about updates: For information about current security alerts and critical patch updates for Oracle Solaris, see http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/security/alerts.htm. However, I have been unable to find reference to the requirements necessary to receive software and security updates, nor even whether such updates are planned for Solaris 11 Express. Anyone have an idea what the update policy is? Your questions are answered in the FAQ linked from the Oracle Solaris 11 Express page here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/overview/index.html See FAQ entries 11 and 36. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] opensolaris iscsi target gives 10% performance compared to nexenta
On 10/ 7/10 02:43 AM, chris wrote: I have been testing nexenta against opensolaris 2009.06 as an iscsi target / storage repository for Xenserver 5.6 using the same hardware and vm configuration. The target has two xeon quad-core cpus, 4gb ram and 4 seagate drives with opensolaris on the first and a 1tb volume on other three. Opensolaris seems to perform very badly compared to nexenta when performing sqlio tests on a Windows 2008 Server R2 virtual machine. The IOs/s and MB/s from opensolaris are apporximately 10% (300 and 20) of the results from nexenta. Are there tweaks to opensolaris that will increase the iscsi performance and explain the difference in performance? Thanks, Chris sqlio tests I was running sqlio -kW -t2 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris sqlio -kW -t4 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris sqlio -kW -t8 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris sqlio -kW -t16 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris sqlio -kR -t2 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris sqlio -kR -t4 -s120 -dM -o1 -frandom -b64 -BH -LS testfile.dat sqlioResults-opensolaris I'd strongly suggest trying the 134a 'development' build for OpenSolaris. You can download an ISO image [1] or a USB image suitable for use with the 'usbcopy' utility [2]. Nexenta is likely based on a much newer build than OpenSolaris 2009.06 which could explain the performance difference. -Shawn [1] http://genunix.org/dist/indiana/osol-dev-134-x86.iso [2] http://genunix.org/dist/indiana/osol-dev-134-x86.usb ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pkg info vs pkginfo -il
On 10/ 6/10 07:46 PM, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: But why do the fake version strings differ depending on the tool used? Is there a translation/conversion I should use for them? The only version string that's fake is the one from pkginfo. It differs because it's just placeholder information to satisfy SVR4 package dependencies. Is it correct then to say that on OpenSolaris I should only use: pkg and NOT use pkginfo at all? And pkg will show all the SVR4 stuff with the correct versions etc? If it is for an SVR4 package, you must use 'pkginfo' to obtain package information. Otherwise, you must use 'pkg info'. If the above is not true, then if there are some SVR4 packages installed in an OpenSolaris system, what is the correct method to get a complete (SVR4 and IPS) list of software packages installed and avoiding or removing duplicates. There's no easy way to get a list of all installed packages for both IPS + SVR4 that avoids duplicates. Unless SVR4 packages have been installed, there's no reason to use 'pkginfo', and so the output of 'pkg list' should be sufficient. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Management Center
On 10/ 5/10 04:25 AM, julian wrote: K, I've managed to run this as the root user now by removing the type=role entry of the root user, but still get the same error: The Wizard could not detect the source files. Exiting As another test I tried this on a Centos VM as the root user, and the install works fine. I get prompted to install the Agent. So anyone any idea why this doesn't work on OpenSolaris and if it does work ... how, I'm at a loss now. SMC isn't supported on OpenSolaris as far as I'm aware, and is unlikely to work correctly even if you get it to run. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] upgrade woes, snv_132 - snv_147 - snv_149
On 09/29/10 05:20 PM, Bill Shannon wrote: I upgraded my snv_132 system today. I'm using the Oracle-internal pkg server mirror so I apologize if this is in an Oracle-internal problem. The Update Manager upgraded me to snv_147 even though the latest version of entire available was 149. And it created a new boot environment named opensolaris-133. Ok, weird, but not the real problem. Update All (in packagemanager terms, or 'image-update' in pkg(1) terms) updates your system to the latest that it *can* upgrade your system to, which is not necessarily the latest. For example, if you have a package that depends on another package that is obsolete in a newer build, the package system assumes you'd prefer to keep your installed software working rather than silently removing its dependencies ;) Now, running snv_147, I ran Update Manager and told it to update me again. After gathering the package information it failed with: Error: This is an Live Image. The install operation can't be performed. What does that mean? There's a bug in the packagemanager behaviour in b147: https://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=17032 If you want to try to update your system, I suggest using pkg(1) instead. Oh, and if I click on the Release notes link, it takes me to a document that has been deleted a few days ago. The release that link was for has never been released unfortunately. The internal announcements include the actual release notes. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Restoring snv 134 BE from backup
On 09/17/10 04:54 PM, devsk wrote: Somehow I ended up deleting the snv 134 BE that I had. Now, I can't upgrade to latest images (from openindiana) because it needs 134 as base. I want to restore the BE from backup, which I had taken some time back. How can I restore a BE to a workable state? Is it just about creating a filesystem with that name and restoring the snapshot from backup on top of the FS? You could probably use the '-e' option of 'beadm create'; see beadm(1M) for more information. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 05:00 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Richard L. Hamiltonrlha...@smart.net wrote: Well...there are probably people that prefer for example * traditional Solaris command set default vs GNU command set default This is why few Solaris users did accept Indiana. Based on what data do you make that assertion? * SVR4 packages vs IPS vs whatever packaging scheme Nexenta uses (there too there's a problem, inasmuch as other tools like beadm and zonecfg are also involved, although I gather it ought to be possible to come up with different versions of them for each packaging scheme that some distro or another uses) SVR4 packages support sparse zones, IPS does not. The choice to not support sparse zones was a decision made by the zones team; not by the packaging team. ... But don't forget that the most commercial (i.e. developers that do it as their day job) distro outside of Oracle is probably Nexenta, and they do Debian-based packaging and command set. Commercial developers still use SVR4 packages And I would expect them to until the image packaging system provides a full set of documentation, and the man page no longer says in development. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 11:03 AM, Dmitry G. Kozhinov wrote: ... OpenIndiana project should maintain it's own package repository. Solaris 11 packages may occur incompatible - who knows how Oracle will modify the IPS system? An will they drop us IPS source code after Solaris 11 is released? The source for pkg(5) is available here: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/pkg/gate/ The pkg(5) developers putback to that gate, so immediately after a commit, you'll see the change there. genunix.org has also mirrored the source repository there: http://hg.genunix.org/pkg-gate.hg/ And all bug tracking for pkg(5) is performed on defect.opensolaris.org. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 11:38 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Calum Bensoncalum.ben...@oracle.com wrote: On 16 Sep 2010, at 14:04, Ashish Nabira wrote: Lets add those important packages to repositories and make OpenIndiana popular to newbiesThat's one good way to make it popular . Anyone who wanted to was always free to contribute such packages to OpenSolaris, via spec-files-extra and later, Source Juicer. Not many people ever did, and of those, not everyone subsequently kept them up to date. If OpenIndiana can find the people to port and maintain a large package library that Sun/Oracle never could, then fair play to them! The main problem with OpenSolaris under Sun was that it was close to impossible to contribute. This was not a problem from missing contributors but a problem caused by the was Sun did interact with contributors. It was quite possible to contribute. Obviously, it's harder to do some things than others. But it really wasn't as hard as you imply. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 12:03 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: On 09/16/10 05:00 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Richard L. Hamiltonrlha...@smart.net wrote: Well...there are probably people that prefer for example * traditional Solaris command set default vs GNU command set default This is why few Solaris users did accept Indiana. Based on what data do you make that assertion? From talking with *many* Solaris users. The only Indiana users I know are Solaris newcomers. So anecdotal, rather than factual. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 12:03 PM, see...@cise.ufl.edu wrote: +-- Shawn Walker wrote (Thu, 16-Sep-2010, 10:50 -0700): | | The choice to not support sparse zones was a decision made by the zones | team; not by the packaging team. Out of curiosity and before I go searching, is the rationale for this choice publically available in an ARC case or elsewhere? No idea; you could search through the materials at arc.opensolaris.org. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Merge other distros to OpenIndiana?
On 09/16/10 01:14 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: On 09/16/10 12:03 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: On 09/16/10 05:00 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Richard L. Hamiltonrlha...@smart.netwrote: Well...there are probably people that prefer for example * traditional Solaris command set default vs GNU command set default This is why few Solaris users did accept Indiana. Based on what data do you make that assertion? From talking with *many* Solaris users. The only Indiana users I know are Solaris newcomers. So anecdotal, rather than factual. You should face it that you seem to write anecdotes as you did not prove your claims. I haven't made any claims; I merely pointed out that you are relying on anecdotal evidence. Since you are not in possession of the necessary data to assert your particular claim, I don't believe it prudent of you to do so. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express
On 08/20/10 03:26 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: ... I can't see any other OS (nor M$ nor OSX) that to be licensed requires annual support subscription...when you buy Wins or Macs, you pay once for your license, that's all (unless you really want or need support from M$ or Apple). RedHat enterprise Linux requires a subscription, and you lose the right to use it if you stop the subscription. There are others as well. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express
On 08/20/10 09:41 AM, carlopmart wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On 08/20/10 03:26 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: ... I can't see any other OS (nor M$ nor OSX) that to be licensed requires annual support subscription...when you buy Wins or Macs, you pay once for your license, that's all (unless you really want or need support from M$ or Apple). RedHat enterprise Linux requires a subscription, and you lose the right to use it if you stop the subscription. That's not correct. You lose only the support, but you can use it on several servers as you want and it is legal. Only lose the support (and the right to download updates). No, it is correct. I was previously a RedHat customer, and they made it very clear to me that the right to continue to use the distribution on the system was void once the subscription expired. Whether that has changed since I was a customer, I couldn't tell you. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris cancelled, to be replaced with Solaris 11 Express
On 08/20/10 09:41 AM, carlopmart wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On 08/20/10 03:26 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: ... I can't see any other OS (nor M$ nor OSX) that to be licensed requires annual support subscription...when you buy Wins or Macs, you pay once for your license, that's all (unless you really want or need support from M$ or Apple). RedHat enterprise Linux requires a subscription, and you lose the right to use it if you stop the subscription. That's not correct. You lose only the support, but you can use it on several servers as you want and it is legal. Only lose the support (and the right to download updates). See also section 5: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/us.html -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] List of Public/Anonymous Mercurial Gates?
On 08/16/10 02:03 PM, Kyle McDonald wrote: Hi, I've been traversing the project pages, looking for info on accessing their respective mercurial gates, but its a slow process. Is there an authoritative list of the gates hosted on hg.opensolaris.org that are open to anonymous access? If you have an opensolaris.org user account, you can login (I believe) and see the list here: http://repo.opensolaris.org/info/projects.action -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] gnome-sound-properties
On 08/ 6/10 10:44 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: Does anyone know what happened to gone-sound-properties? Is there something that replaced it? Wanted to configure sound events and can not find anyway to do it. Same with evolution, unable to play sound file on incoming emails. So, this seems odd to me, and there is a bug somewhere for this, but changing the sounds for events, etc. is now under the 'Sound Theme' tab of gnome-volume-control. Yes, that's right; sound customisation is done in the *volume control* utility. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Express package installation failure
On 07/29/10 02:33 PM, Tom Chen wrote: Hello, I have installed snv137 and snv143. I want to add gcc package through the package manager. Though I can search the list of gcc related packages from the publisher - opensolaris.org, the installation of gcc-43, gcc-432 always fails. The error is Preparation Failed, No version of developer/gcc/gcc-43 can be installed. But I can install on snv134. Anyone can kindly tell me how to install? Since there's no public repository for builds beyond 134, it doesn't surprise me that you couldn't install gcc-43. What is the output of 'pkg publisher' ? -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Express package installation failure
On 07/29/10 04:59 PM, tom60 wrote: Shawn, # pkg publisher PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI opensolaris.org (preferred) origin online http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/ # cat /etc/release Oracle Solaris Next Development snv_143 X86 Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Assembled 02 July 2010 This is why you cannot install additional packages. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 11:55 PM, HeCSa wrote: ... On 07/24/10 08:23 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: ... The source is there, and you can build it you know ;) Alternatively, you could use the bits someone made available on genunix.org for b142: http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/ Hi, Shawn! Do you know about any tutorial / white paper / something explaining how to start from the sources, and create a repo such as Rich Lowe did with snv_142? I wrote something in English, and posted, and something in Spanish for our community site about how to upgrade from snv_134 to onnv_142, but don't know how to start from sources and end with such a repo. I understand Rich did a great job with this, and want to reproduce it locally. Any help will be appreciated. The last time I built ON I used the developer's guide and some instructions provided by the ON community: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+on/devref_toc http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+indiana/building_on I suspect the process will roughly be: * install OpenSolaris b134a * setup an ON repository containing b142 using the bits rich lowe provides at genunix.org: http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/ * upgrade the system to those bits * install ON build dependencies (studio 12 u1 bits from opensolaris.org download page, developer/opensolaris/osnet, developer/opensolaris/pkg5, etc.) * follow instructions on pages linked above to build ON and in Rich's README.txt. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 03:51 PM, Rob McMahon wrote: On 24/07/2010 23:27, Shawn Walker wrote: The version of pkg(5) that will be part of b144 should deliver somewhere around a 20% or greater performance improvement in transport performance when used with a properly configured web and/or depot server. Do you know how frustrating it is when people say putback in b135, fixed in b140, the version in b144 is so much better when we're all stuck at b134. Aagh. The general community is capable of building newer bits; this is an excellent opportunity for someone to do so. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 06:37 AM, Moinak Ghosh wrote: ... To stir the pot here, since we are discussing a Community Distro as opposed to a SUN/Oracle distro, IPS when used remotely from halfway across the world has large performance issues. For example in Bangalore I personally know no one outside the SUN India office who have successfully updated packages on their OpenSolaris installations let alone do an image-update in a sane amount of time. In comparison things like YUM or Apt-Get are reasonable even over 512Kbps. Having said that I am not going to make vague statements. I will do my own testing over a 2Mbps broadband link and post measurements. The version of pkg(5) that will be part of b144 should deliver somewhere around a 20% or greater performance improvement in transport performance when used with a properly configured web and/or depot server. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 10:08 AM, Stefan Parvu wrote: The only problem I can see in regards to how IPS was introduced that perhaps more explanation to the community at the project inception about why IPS and not something else would do good... a little bit more open dialog with the community before you start coding on why IPS, what are its design goals, etc. would help here. In my opinion, we will always have some gaps here, how open this process will be. Sun/Oracle will not ask the community unless they engage the community in the building process. In my view RedHat is a very well player which knows how to extract the goodies from Fedora without getting burned maintaining it ;) We need to learn to do the same. Otherwise we will live in hope. Regarding IPS and future we need to think and co-work this with vendor and find a common way together. IPS has still long way until it reaches some sort of stable status. From Finland some feedback I got from users regarding IPS (our internal FIOSUG, and other folks regarding IPS status found on 2009.06): - not a download format for a package. Meaning somebody would like to simple download emacs.pkg and manuall install it ! Cant do that now One is in development (right now). - repository cloning. Still hairy and poor documentation http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+pkg/Mirroring Also see pkgrecv(1). - mirrors: slow links to fetch packages from US. Who cares how well and smart IPS is if it takes forever to have some pkgs install in your machine. Ubuntu has a nice mirror list where pkgs are fetched within minutes. I can confirm as well this. Its a pain sometimes to download something from main repo. I live in Finland and have a 8Mbps line. This is not an IPS issue; this is a distribution issue. Remember that all of the bits on pkg.opensolaris.org have been redistributable for a long time. That means that if someone wanted a mirror in say, Finland, they could have set one up. For that matter, one could have been setup on genunix.org a while ago. - IPS resource consumption. Big and fat process when installing some basic pkgs. Dont have facts here but I have seen it too. I had the impression some work went in to get this fixed and improve things. Fixes went in builds after b134 that reduced memory usage by as much as 60%. At the moment (after the fixes noted above), memory usage remains primarily a function of the amount of package data the client has to process. Considering that the /dev repository contains nearly 70,000 unique package versions, I'd say it's pretty good at the moment. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 07:06 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: On 07/23/10 04:41 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote: Why? IPS was shoved down the community's throat in a heavy handed and decidedly not FOSS manner. Sorry, but that's simply not true. The pkg(5) project has been one of the few projects that is actually very open. It was the first to use defect.opensolaris.org for bugtracking, it's licensed under the CDDL, and at the moment any contributor (even external ones) can get commit access upon approval by the project team members. The basic OSS rules are: - release early - release often The gate is public, so we release essentially every time there's a putback. If you mean a tarball, no, because this is an integrated distribution project. - port to many platforms. It runs on GNU/Linux, BSD, (Open)Solaris, and AIX (reportedly). Although I should note that the primary focus and drive for the project is a well integrated packaging system that meets the needs of the OS distribution it is integrated with. But there was no visibility and testability on SXCE and for this reason, it missed most users I know. Also not true. There are definitely individuals that use it on SXCE. Although I should note that's only for the depot server and user images. It is not intended to manage packages on a Solaris 10 system's '/' filesystem. For now, IPS is used by one OpenSolaris distro only and this distro published the last binary release nearly one year ago. That's also not true. b134a was published in March -- that's nowhere close to a year. Writing and publishing successful OSS is not only producing code. You need to convince the users also with facts. The best way this can be done is by making the software available everywhere (and creators of distributions have a big change with getting new users by including software), but IPS did not appear on SXCE... It isn't mean to be in SXCE, so wasn't put there. I think you misunderstand its purpose. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 04:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote: On 07/25/10 10:27 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 07/24/10 06:37 AM, Moinak Ghosh wrote: ... To stir the pot here, since we are discussing a Community Distro as opposed to a SUN/Oracle distro, IPS when used remotely from halfway across the world has large performance issues. For example in Bangalore I personally know no one outside the SUN India office who have successfully updated packages on their OpenSolaris installations let alone do an image-update in a sane amount of time. In comparison things like YUM or Apt-Get are reasonable even over 512Kbps. Having said that I am not going to make vague statements. I will do my own testing over a 2Mbps broadband link and post measurements. The version of pkg(5) that will be part of b144 should deliver somewhere around a 20% or greater performance improvement in transport performance when used with a properly configured web and/or depot server. If we ever get to see b 134! The source is there, and you can build it you know ;) Alternatively, you could use the bits someone made available on genunix.org for b142: http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/ Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/24/10 04:25 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: It isn't mean to be in SXCE, so wasn't put there. I think you misunderstand its purpose. Maybe IPS was not developed for integration, then I could understand why it did not appear on SXCE. IPS will not be used by e.g. swiss banks the way it currently works. They do not have internet on their servers. They have additional security components in their caverns in the mountains, they call these security components machine guns In order to get an OS on their servers, they like to have granted reproducability without network access. This worked with SXCE but this does not work with indina. You don't need network access to install packages using pkg(5). While it's true that in b134 you had to at least start a depot server, you could so on the local system itself. In builds 142+, you can actually configure the client to use a package repository on a filesystem directly so a depot server isn't required. The on-disk format for repositories is intended to be formalised soon (and this is no secret -- just watch pkg-discuss) and an on-disk archive format delivered. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/24/10 04:30 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Alan Coopersmithalan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Alan Coopersmithalan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote: Can Oracle Engineering provide someone like Joerg what he needs to update his external SchilliX distro to implement ON snv_145/IPS 134? I'm guessing you're talking to me? I have no idea what Joerg needs, but we've already provided the community with everything they need to build current ON IPS bits, as evidenced by multiple external community members doing so. You do need a recent build of IPS to build ON builds 136 later, and X builds 144 later, but that's fully available from the pkg-gate sources on the opensolaris hg repos. Do you have a IPS SVr4 package or do you have a IPS source that compiles on a machine without IPS? The IPS source compiles on machines without IPS. Is there a separate IPS source? hg clone ssh://a...@hg.opensolaris.org/hg/pkg/gate The IPS source that is inside b138 did not completely compile as it expects definition files to be in the host OS that are missing on SCXE b130 Yes, you will need a version of ON newer than what you'll find in SXCE b130. pkg(5) isn't suited for use with SXCE. The source for ON builds 130 is available, and you can build it. If you don't want to build it yourself, feel free to use what Rich Lowe has provided at genunix.org (b142): http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/ To use the above, you'll need to install b134a of the OpenSolaris distribution and then use the instructions in the README at the link above. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.7.0 ready for testing
On 07/23/10 04:41 PM, Ken Gunderson wrote: Why? IPS was shoved down the community's throat in a heavy handed and decidedly not FOSS manner. Sorry, but that's simply not true. The pkg(5) project has been one of the few projects that is actually very open. It was the first to use defect.opensolaris.org for bugtracking, it's licensed under the CDDL, and at the moment any contributor (even external ones) can get commit access upon approval by the project team members. It has active, external contributors to the project (including myself at one point a few years ago before I was employed for the project), and is one of the few to push almost all design and development discussions onto a public os.org mailing list. Remember that this community and the projects that provide the basis for various OpenSolaris distributions remain largely a meritocracy -- those that do the work get to make the decisions. There are plenty of open source projects that have made decisions unpopular with their user community. That doesn't make those projects any less FOSS, nor does it justify claims of forcing something on a community. I respect your belief that the pkg(5) system was not a good choice. However, I assert that your unjustified belief that it was forced on anyone, or that is is not a FOSS project, is grossly inaccurate. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Richard L. Hamiltonrlha...@smart.net wrote: A packaging system is a packaging system. IPS is nobody's favorite, but that's better than arguing the merits of rpm vs deb vs BSD ports vs ... The SVr4 packaging system understands http based URIs for the packages since 2006. It does support the knowledge on dependencies since a long time... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? Joerg, if you think that's all the SVr4 system is missing compared to pkg(5), then I think you need to take some time to find out more about the image packaging system. There is significantly more functionality provided. -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/19/10 02:50 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: ... If we add the inverted tsort algorith and a default prefix for packages (e.g. http://schily.net/packages) and if we combine this with ZFS, is there really something missing? For those interested in learning more about the dependency solver use by pkg(5) (integrated in build 128), read more here: http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/satisfaction Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris Next timescale
On 07/19/10 03:53 AM, andrew wrote: ... So the big question is: will Solaris Next use IPS packaging? My money is on IPS packaging but a big fat CPIO-based DVD installation similar to S10 but using the new Caiman installers from OpenSolaris (local text and graphics-based installs plus via serial line, network and service processor consoles). If you've been watching the pkg-discuss mailing list, you'd note that the on-disk form for the image packaging system is already under development. And for the record, the chosen format is not CPIO. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/18/10 02:07 AM, Moinak Ghosh wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:41 AM, W. Wayne Liauhw...@hawaiilinux.org wrote: On 17 Jul 2010, at 18:07, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: One of the biggest problems with all of our community distros is that they are not compatible with IPS. This problem is further complicated by the fact that Sun's own OpenSolaris distro does not allow multiple boot with other Solaris-based OS. Things probably would look very different if Sun's top management did not summarily ignore all of those community distros. Instead, they had to hire a Linux has-been to create something that never received support from the Solaris old hands. I quite liked Ben Rockwood's take on IPS: http://www.cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1125 I can say that I used to hate IPS, but no more. It isn't perfect, but when you accept it and learn to work with it, it doesn't seem so bad. Alasdair. One of the most distinguishing advantages of IPS which is also one of the best selling points of OpenSolaris, is that, after you do an image-update to a newer version of OpenSolaris, your current version will be persevered as one of the dual-boot options during a reboot. I know I have talked several Ubuntu users to take a look at OpenSolaris exactly because of this ZFS-associated feature. Nothing saddened me more than the fact that Stephen Hahn is no longer with the OpenSolaris development team. However, as honorable as Stephen is, I am sure he has laid a solid foundation for IPS to move on and form the basis of the Solaris.next. That has nothing to do with IPS. It is a ZFS feature. I implemented exactly the same stuff on BeleniX using SVR4 packaging. It does have something to do with pkg(5) in the sense that it is integrated with functionality such as boot environments. If it wasn't integrated, the user experience wouldn't be the same just as you pointed out with Belenix's own integration. However, one related thing to keep in mind is that the zone creation and management mechanisms are now tightly integrated with the image packaging system. Just as the automated installer is, etc. Other distributions will have to re-implement a large amount of work if they choose to use a different packaging system. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/18/10 04:57 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Shawn Walkershawn.wal...@oracle.com wrote: However, one related thing to keep in mind is that the zone creation and management mechanisms are now tightly integrated with the image packaging system. Just as the automated installer is, etc. Other distributions will have to re-implement a large amount of work if they choose to use a different packaging system. This may still be much less than IPS is missing in order to make it a complete packaging system. Actually, the image packaging system has quite a bit of functionality at this point. If you believe there is specific functionality with a particular use case that isn't being addressed, please file an RFE or defect as appropriate at http://defect.opensolaris.org under development - opensolaris - pkg. The big problem with IPS is that there is no migration strategy, so it may be better to not migrate. That depends on what you define as migration and what your specific needs are. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [distribution-discuss] Why do we need Oracle's permission or vision for OpenSolaris?
On 07/16/10 07:18 AM, Alasdair Lumsden wrote: ... Thanks again for this feedback. Do you know if the SVR4-IPS conversion tool(s) are publicly available/open source? The mass import tool is in the pkg(5) gate here: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/pkg/gate/src/util/distro-import/ ...and pkgsend(1) (included with the OpenSolaris distribution) can import SVR4 packages, tarballs, or directories as packages. See the man page for details. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [distribution-discuss] Community distro
On 07/16/10 01:26 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote: ... I like the idea of a minimalist distro, backed by a robust IPS. This is something which probably should have been started in the first place (instead of the current IMHO impossible mess). Now that you mentioned this great idea of putting together a minimalist distro, has anyone ever thought about Milax? I have only taken a short cut and tried to install it in VirtualBox, but have not succeeded. Has any successfully installed and run Firrefox 3.6.6 and OpenOffice.org 3.2 in Milax? The website seems to indicate that we can run SVR4 and IPS packages in Milax? Furthermore, a couple years ago, there was a shockingly beautiful desktop-oriented true OpenSolaris derivative (meaning IPS-based) coming from Japan called LifeWithSolaris (or JARIS, JApan solaRIS). This site was shut down by, as this little dirty mind of mine has always strongly suspected, one of Sun's people (but not one of its developers). There was a strong reason for my suspension but I have zero proof. I am wondering whether there is any way to locate this developer. At a time like this, he or she can be very helpful. lifewithsolaris was just a user run site that provided some packages that were patent and/or license encumbered. JARIS as far as I know had nothing to do with that and is still going just fine here: http://jaris.jp/ Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Community distro
On 07/14/10 08:39 AM, Alex Viskovatoff wrote: dclarke wrote: I have no love for that python disaster called IPS. I think that conceptually, IPS is very good. Of course, it's silly to implement system software in an interpreted language like Python. In time, if OpenSolaris survives, hopefully someone will rewrite pkg in a more appropriate language like Haskell, for example. But that is not at all a high priority, since although the current pkg is annoying, it works. I'm not certain what criteria you're using to determine what language is appropriate to write system applications in, but I can assure you that choice of programming language will not magically make a project's resulting software better or faster simply because of the language. Applications can be good or bad regardless of the language they're written in. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] MySQLdb [and setuptools] for Python2.6 on snv_134(dev)
On 07/ 9/10 11:59 AM, Michael Brzustowicz wrote: when i search 'dev' for setuptools, something briefly appears and disappears in the package window ... i think it's setuptools and i just don't see python-mysql-26 at all, just 24 ... It would depend on what build of OpenSolaris you currently have installed. What build do you have installed? You need build 133 or newer. You can tell by looking at the output of uname -a or cat /etc/release. On older builds, the package is named SUNWpython26-setuptools for python2.6 or SUNWmysql-python26. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] osol-dev-134-x86.usb does not boot
On 07/ 9/10 02:05 PM, Aleksey Cheusov wrote: I've downloaded osol-dev-134-x86.usb memstick image in order to install opensolaris on my CD/DVD-less Acer Aspire Revo 3600. I dd-ed this image to my memory stick but my nettop doesn't boot from it. file(1) shows the following /srv/pub/isos/osol-dev-133-x86.usb: Unix Fast File system [v1] (little-endian), last mounted on /export/home/dc/build_data/tmp/, last written at Wed Feb 17 03:06:43 2010, clean flag 1, number of blocks 802800, number of data blocks 753053, number of cylinder groups 168, block size 8192, fragment size 1024, minimum percentage of free blocks 8, rotational delay 0ms, disk rotational speed 120rps, TIME optimization Is osol-dev-134-x86.usb a correct memstick image? The .usb imagse are meant to be copied to a USB flash device using a special program 'usbcopy'; you can't just dd them to the device. *However*, I've found that you *can* dd the .iso image for OpenSolaris to a USB flash device and boot it. (At least it works on two machines I've tried.) Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] The Possibilities
On 07/ 6/10 08:42 AM, Paul Gress wrote: On 07/ 6/10 01:13 AM, Ian Collins wrote: On 07/ 6/10 04:48 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Opensolaris and solaris are for servers. Not desktops. Yes you can use it for a desktop if you want, but it's not designed for that purpose, and not good compared to other products in that arena. So what do you suggest I use for my Solaris development work? I saw this last night and didn't respond, but today is a new day. I agree with Ian. Why would you need acroreader on a server? Why would you even need Firefox and Thunderbird? The list goes on. I use Sunray? Remote X clients? The list goes on... Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Open Solaris going the way of the Amiga
On 06/28/10 09:57 PM, Giovanni wrote: I really do hope it it like you say. Nevertheless, I have t say it is very difficult to work this way. I am talking OpenSolaris (but many things apply to Solaris as well). 1) No roadmap (do you have seen one recently) 2) Support for new hardware is still in development branches (new SAS 2 controllers from LSI in svn_134) 3)svn_134 has still lots of bugs/issues (at least in the GUI): NIC configuration is a pain; better go via command line 4) some key components (i.e. ramdisk implementation) have severe performance issues (a ram disk running at 500MB/s on DDR3 1333 is slower than working on a striped physical disk set; same ramdisk on Linux on same hw runs at several GB/s) We all know no perfect software is there (the perfect one is the one that never comes out), but short releases cycles (with roadmap) allow community to test and contribute and to make things more stable and better performing. Instead no svn releases after 134 are out there and no idea if/when they will come and what they will contain... Ahem: http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/ Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] how come http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/en/index.shtml
On 06/ 7/10 10:58 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: devsk wrote: is updated on Jun 2nd this year (hehe..) and it has 24000+ packages, whereas the dev one is updated in March this year and has about 4000 packages? I believe that's because /dev is running a newer version that reports the more interesting number of packages in the latest build, while the older version on release is reporting each version of each package as a separate package, leading to the mass confusion that resulted in that statistic being reported better in the new version. Alan is correct; this is exactly the reason. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GCC-4.3.2, where does the binary get installed to?
On 06/ 8/10 03:30 PM, Günther Schmidt wrote: Hello, I wanted to install gcc-4.3.2 through the pkg system. It seems to do something but I do not see where the actual gcc binary is installed. I'm using OSOL 2009.06 To determine what files an *installed* package delivers, you can use pkg contents: $ pkg contents pkg_name So, in this case: $ pkg contents developer/gcc/gcc-432 | grep usr/bin usr/bin usr/bin/c++-4.3.2 usr/bin/cpp-4.3.2 usr/bin/g++-4.3.2 usr/bin/gcc-4.3.2 usr/bin/gccbug-4.3.2 usr/bin/gcov-4.3.2 usr/bin/gfortran-4.3.2 usr/bin/i386-pc-solaris2.11-c++-4.3.2 usr/bin/i386-pc-solaris2.11-g++-4.3.2 usr/bin/i386-pc-solaris2.11-gcc-4.3.2 usr/bin/i386-pc-solaris2.11-gfortran-4.3.2 If you don't see the above, please reply with the output of pkg info developer/gcc/gcc-432. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] pkg problems
On 06/ 7/10 10:35 AM, Rob Nelson wrote: Seems to be a problem with http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/. I am having this problem on multiple systems. --full has same issue: r...@gb4000-04:# pkg refresh --full Caching catalogs ... An error was encountered while attempting to read image state information to perform the requested operation. Details follow: Catalog file '/var/pkg/publisher/opensolaris.org/catalog/catalog.base.C' is invalid. The issue should now be resolved. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Osol - pkg inst an earlier revision?
On 06/ 5/10 07:22 AM, Attila Nagy wrote: Hi all, I hit some bug in libtheora. I use recordmysolaris quite frequently, and libtheoraenc.so 1.1.2 (that's the current version if I recall correctly) encodes the uncompressed file badly into ogv. I'm on sxce (125), so I popped in an earlier dvd (117) (ok: I mounted an earlier image :)), pkgrm'ed SUNWlibtheora, and added an earlier version. I have a b134 Osol as well, and libtheora's version is the same on that host (1.1.2). It was easy to install the older one on sxce (since I have the iso), but how can I do that on Osol? *If* there's an earlier version of the package available for build 134, then you could install it by uninstalling the current package first, and then installing the new one specifying the version. But I suspect you want to install an older version of this library from a much older build which you cannot do using the package system. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Osol - pkg inst an earlier revision?
On 06/ 5/10 12:16 PM, Attila Nagy wrote: Aha, thanks for the info! I suspect this is by design so, am I right? Correct. Does this worth an RFE? I understand that this feature can/may cause troubles (only if used, of course :)), but - if used with caution, and, say a zfs snapshot :) - could come handy sometimes! It's been discussed, but it really isn't a supportable feature. The whole purpose of a package system is to ensure the correct installation and operation of software on your system. Adding the ability to override that sort of defeats the purpose of a package system. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem: Slow ssh login to server
On 06/ 1/10 05:39 AM, Brandon Hume wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:22 -0700, lance tan wrote: When I login to osol from another host in the LAN, obviously, the DNS server couldn't reverse resolve the IP inside the LAN. But there is no way to disable DNS reverse lookup by SunSSH. No, but you can trick it. Toss the IPs in question into /etc/hosts. That didn't work for me. In my case, I ended up having to temporarily copy /etc/nsswitch.files to /etc/nsswitch.conf and then do my rsync's, etc. and then copy nsswitch.dns back over it. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem: Slow ssh login to server
On 06/ 1/10 10:20 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: On 6/1/2010 9:19 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 06/ 1/10 05:39 AM, Brandon Hume wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:22 -0700, lance tan wrote: When I login to osol from another host in the LAN, obviously, the DNS server couldn't reverse resolve the IP inside the LAN. But there is no way to disable DNS reverse lookup by SunSSH. No, but you can trick it. Toss the IPs in question into /etc/hosts. That didn't work for me. In my case, I ended up having to temporarily copy /etc/nsswitch.files to /etc/nsswitch.conf and then do my rsync's, etc. and then copy nsswitch.dns back over it. Cheers, -Shawn Shawn - just change the hosts line of /etc/nsswitch.conf to be: hosts: files dns That should work just fine as a permanent fix (as well as putting the IPs you really care about in /etc/hosts). No, that's how it already is by default (minus the mdns). Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Dev repository last catalog update is March 6, 2010?
On 05/30/10 03:25 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Mike Gerdts wrote: Could it be because pkg image update is known to work pretty well going forward (b134 - b134b) but is known not to work well or is untested for going backward (b142 - b134b)? pkg is known not to work at all for installing backwards, by design. Going backwards is done by reverting to old boot environments you preserved. If you suspect you may want to go back, keep around a boot environment for the oldest release you may want to go back to. Once there you can re-upgrade to an intermediate build if needed. Indeed, it is not intended to work going backwards; only forwards. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] protolist: command not found
On 05/20/10 04:46 AM, Adil Mujeeb wrote: HI, I was going through OpenSolaris develoeps reference and read about Proto Area. It has been mentioned that:- You can generate protolists with the protolist command, which does not include a man page. Its invocation is as follows: $ protolistprotoroot But there is no protolist command exists. How to get this command:- a...@opensolaris:/# protolist /export/home/build/b111b/ bash: protolist: command not found a...@opensolaris:/# The protolist command is part of the onbld package: http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/en/search.shtml?token=protolistaction=Search So either install 'SUNWonbld' or 'developer/build/onbld' if you're on b132+. If you're really on 111b, you'll need to use protolist from the onbld tarball. protolist is not really the command you're looking for if you're wanting to package things. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] image-update incredibly slow
[moving to pkg-discuss] On 05/19/10 05:04 PM, Antoine Benkemoun wrote: Hello, I am trying to update an OpenSolaris 2009.06 Xen VM (dom0 is Debian Lenny) from build 111 to 134. It is incredibly slow, you can't even imagine... Yesterday, I started the process at 11PM and at 6PM today it crashed towards the end of the installation phase. I stopped it then and restarted it tonight and it does not show any signs of life after three hours stuck at Creating plan. I started it in a screen so it shouldn't have to do with my terminal and/or SSH connection. It did the upgrade process on my Intel Atom + ADSL 7Mbit/s and it took 5 hours. I guess it's an acceptable time for a 23 version upgrade but this VM is on a reasonably sized server (Quad Core, 4Gb of RAM) with 100Mbit/s of Internet bandwidth. I used the following commands : pkg set-publisher -O http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev opensolaris.org http://opensolaris.org pkg image-update What could be crashing the process and making it so incredibly slow ? Usually the culprit is the amount of available memory or the connection being used. However, other possibilities include significant I/O performance issues. The image-update process itself once all of the package content has been downloaded should take just a few minutes with sufficiently fast I/O. Have you checked the output of 'zpool status' for errors? Do you have at least 1GB of memory available (free) when you start the image-update? Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Opensolaris HCL seems to have vanished
On 05/17/10 06:06 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Is this simply web page maintenance, or is it a closed door? Wow, it was there this morning. I just went and looked at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/ ... all those links go to the web grave yard. Very odd. The Solaris 10 HCL has the same problem right now, so I suspect this is a more general issue. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [pkg-discuss] unable to add publisher: pkg hangs
On 04/29/10 08:41 AM, solarg wrote: hello all, on my os20xx.xx, b134, i'm unable to add a publisher: $ pfexec pkg set-publisher -O http://ips.enst.fr ips.enst.fr it hangs: $ pfexec truss -p 2251 lwp_mutex_timedlock(0xFCC3, 0x, 0xFEE12A00) (sleeping...) it's not the first time i had the problem, before i was forced to kill packagemanager. How can i debug the problem? A hang is usually when there is a name resolution issue or some other networking problem. It should eventually timeout. Can you ping this host locally? Do you have an http proxy? Is your http_proxy environment variable set? Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SUNWgmake download
On 05/ 5/10 06:56 PM, Jim Mills wrote: Thanks, Alan. I was hoping to find a link where I can download individual packages. The repo on a stick sounds like a good idea but it's really not what I want. I need about 20 packages installed (locally) and have been able to download about 25% of what I need with the remaining 75% just out of reach. Also, I looked in /var/pkg/download and found a whole lot of directories and files with hex names, nothing close to a package file. The /var/pkg/pkg directory didn't have what I was hoping to find either. The same with /var/sadm/pkg. I'd much prefer downloading just the package files I'm looking for. It would be great if something existed like pkg.opensolaris.org/pub/all-packages. No on-disk format yet exists for pkg(5). However, you can use pkgrecv to retrieve specific packages into your own local repository which you can then install packages from. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SUNWgmake download
On 05/ 5/10 09:53 PM, Ian Collins wrote: On 05/ 6/10 02:46 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: On 05/ 5/10 06:56 PM, Jim Mills wrote: Thanks, Alan. I was hoping to find a link where I can download individual packages. The repo on a stick sounds like a good idea but it's really not what I want. I need about 20 packages installed (locally) and have been able to download about 25% of what I need with the remaining 75% just out of reach. Also, I looked in /var/pkg/download and found a whole lot of directories and files with hex names, nothing close to a package file. The /var/pkg/pkg directory didn't have what I was hoping to find either. The same with /var/sadm/pkg. I'd much prefer downloading just the package files I'm looking for. It would be great if something existed like pkg.opensolaris.org/pub/all-packages. No on-disk format yet exists for pkg(5). However, you can use pkgrecv to retrieve specific packages into your own local repository which you can then install packages from. Can this be combined with an update to ache the packages downloaded? I'm assuming you mean 'cache' the packages downloaded? There's an RFE open to have the client be able to perform the 'download only' part of installs and updates, but it hasn't yet been implemented. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SUNWgmake download
On 05/ 5/10 10:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote: On 05/ 6/10 03:16 PM, Shawn Walker wrote: ... There's an RFE open to have the client be able to perform the 'download only' part of installs and updates, but it hasn't yet been implemented. OK, thanks. I hope it's getting attention, this is would be a prerequisite for enterprise type usage. There's a long list of things to be implemented for enterprise type usage, and yes, they are being evaluated, designed, and/or implemented. Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] When we install opensolaris 2009.6, does it layout a zfs file system?
On 04/18/10 06:16 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Albert Leetr...@opensolaris.org wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 03:01:48 +0430, Sarah khosarah@gmail.com wrote: hi,I am wondering what is the file system that opensolaris 2009.6 creates for its installation, is it zfs or ufs? thank The package system in 2009.06 relies on ZFS features like snapshots and clones. Is this a different wording for: IPS cannot remove packages or updates in a reliable way? No. The package system will still work without ZFS, but the rollback features, etc. are all dependent upon it. ZFS is the native filesystem for OpenSolaris 200x, why wouldn't it use it? Cheers, -Shawn ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
