Hello Philip, Monday, April 17, 2006, 7:19:44 PM, you wrote:
PB> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:35:52AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> >> Saturday, April 15, 2006, 2:27:45 AM, PB writes... >> >> PB> Basically, blastwave packages are set up to be binary distributions, not >> PB> developer distributions. >> PB> If you want to compile other stuff against our packages, you are >> encouraged >> PB> to become a maintainer and add to the collection, using our nice clean >> PB> build servers ;-) >> >> Sorry, internal software only. PB> fair enough... >> [...] >> >> What if I want to compile our own software linked with Solaris OpenSSL >> (to get Niagara HW acceleration for example) and linked with other >> open source libraries provided by Blastwave? What if then these >> libraries depend on openssl provided by Blastwave... and things get >> messy here. PB> That does indeed get messy.But the thing is... in a way, this is sun's PB> fault :-) it should provide patches to openssl to enable niagra PB> acceleration, and then blastwave can use those patches, and then blastwave PB> ssl will have that acceleration too. PB> [really, it should give the patches to openssl.org. but barring that, PB> it would be nice to see a patch set just posted somewhere, like PB> opensolaris.org] http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/on/usr/src/common/openssl/ ? Then Blastwave's OpenSSL is compilled without frame pointers which makes using DTrace harder... And I don't know who's fault it is - the point is that Blastwave is not always a best choice and some kind of competition won't hurt it. Then I like to have an access to sources (and all things I need to compile given application the same way it was compiled - I don't know how it looks right now but it wasn't possible with Blastwave). ps. and hey, Blastwave is great anyway! -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
