Jeff Lasman wrote: >> Anyone knows exactly *what* kinds of problems exist with CMU on the 550? > > Jeff Bilicki wrote (perhaps here?) that he couldn't get it working, so > he disabled it.
Yes, I saw that posting too: http://list.cobalt.com/pipermail/cobalt-users/2002-November/082105.html "Currently I wouldn't recommend it, I added a check so that RaQ550 to RaQ550 would fail. This was due to problems found in testing. Unfortunately, there no SQA resources to test CMU (yet again). I had tried to do as much self testing as possible." > That's what he put into the code because (he said) he didn't have the > time to sufficiently debug it. On his spare time, that is. Since the funds have been cut. :-( So far, we know of a lot of problems with Japanese-language RaQs. >> So in effect, the CMU on the 550 is write-only (kinda useless)... > > Well cmuExport is rather worthless, cmuImport seems to work fine from > RaQ4. Yes, moving *to* the RaQ 550 does seem to work just fine. Backing up the 550, migrating between 550's or moving *from* the 550 is a whole other issue. It's seems to be "almost" working, though... > I'd say ask Jeff; he wrote it, he decided it didn't work sufficiently > well enough to release. So I did, but haven't heard back yet... Think he did a great personal effort of proving us all with the CMU and shell-tools betas, not officially released. >> This was using the CMU 2.43 beta from Jeff's personal site, >> as Sun seems uninterested in providing a CMU for the RaQ 550 ? > > Sad. But apparrently true. Sun does seem rather uninterested in the Cobalt RaQs, period. Guess all their efforts are with Sun Linux and the LX50 now ? >> PS. Anyone know the license status of this code ? (the CMU) >> The RPM file says "GPL", and the source just says "copyright" >> Assuming it's the Sun Binary Code License, or somesuch. > > If the RPM file says GPL then I'd say it's GPL. Whereas I'm not a > lawyer, if Jeff wrote GPL when he created the RPM, then it is. Somehow, I think RPM has a tendency to "fall back" on the GPL if no other license is given in the spec file. Maybe he just didn't write anything in the spec file ? Or got it wrong... BTW; Does the GPL mean that Sun must share their Cobalt patches ? (to the various other GPL'ed software they are shipping, that is) The perl source files doesn't say anything about it being GPL: # Cobalt Networks, Inc http::/www.cobalt.com # Copyright 2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. And there is no "proper" SRPM available, or anything. As usual. Back to tar/gzip and rsync/openssh, I guess. <sigh> --anders _______________________________________________ cobalt-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers
