Re: [osol-discuss] Making OpenSolaris 501(c)(3) (Was Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
On 6/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be very much in favour of seeing OpenSolaris become a 501(c)(3) entity. In fact, I think it is essential that OpenSoalris does so, otherwise OpenSolaris is not exactly attractive for people/companies to donate anything towards in the USA. There's a *lot* of legwork involved with becoming a non-profit - be it a 501(c)3 like Apache or a 501(c)6 like Eclipse. To qualify as a public charity (only public charities will render tax advantages to individuals donating from the US), there'll be some long-term (~4 years out) minimums on who can financially back OpenSolaris (i.e. Sun - or any donor - would only be able to give a certain percentage of the funding after that date). Note that you have to be careful when a charity takes money for a particular purpose and turns around and give that to an individual for some purpose to try to avoid taxes by the original donor. You'd have to draft up some pretty clear conflict-of-interest and financial policies to keep the tax-man and other donors happy. (IOW, Mike can't donate money to a charity and tell the charity to pay Bob. The charity can ask Mike for the money and independently select Bob to receive it.) I'd be happy to talk more in depth if you'd like, but if you go this route, please do so with your eyes wide open. My hunch is that there isn't much benefit for OpenSolaris to go this route at its stage in its lifecycle. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: OpenSolaris as a seperate entity to Sun (Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [ogb-discuss] Re: [advocacy-discuss] Re: Logo/Mascot for OpenSolaris)
On 6/25/07, Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what would we do with that? (Really - I'm coming from a background of the X.Org Foundation, which is having a hard time finding ways to spend it's cash - it's not enough to hire a stable of full-time developers, so has avoided paying for projects so it doesn't fall into the same hole as Debian and other projects who paid people but by doing so, had volunteers decide they didn't want to work on it without pay, for a net loss of people working on the project. Obviously Sun is already paying many OpenSolaris developers, so the dynamics here would be different.) Both Eclipse and Apache have support staff - Eclipse more so than Apache - but neither directly fund any developers. So, money can be beneficial for providing core infrastructure support (clerical, legal, hardware, sysadmin, marketing, etc.) - but the prevailing wisdom in the community is to not directly fund any development from a non-profit. I do know that TPF has conducted some mini-grants over the years with varying levels of success. The community dynamics within OpenSolaris are different, so the OGB would have to decide whether that makes sense. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] GPLv3
On 1/16/07, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, it's well known that Sun has been involved in GPL v3 conversations all long, Java and OpenSPARC went out GPL v2, and GlassFish is GPLv2/CDDL. So if the company is actually considering v3 as an addition to CDDL for OpenSolaris, why not? Wouldn't that make sense? The company has a portfolio of open software that is unmatched at this point, so I'm sure the license gods are always considering the best strategy for a given piece of code. CDDL is a great license and it solved some major problems we had when opening this code, so I can't imagine it going away (which some are concerned about). But a dual strategy looks interesting. Also, there will be an enormous amount of software under v3 when it's done, so wouldn't that benefit us? Don't we want to grow faster? I think there are going to be some practical issues that will prohibit a dual licensing strategy from being effective in the long term. In the short-term, it'll help somewhat though as you get a slight boost from people who have shied away since it wasn't under the GPL. However, Mozilla has had all sorts of issues with their triple-licensing strategy - and I'd hope that would sound the caution. At a high level, the issue is that as external GPLv3 code is imported into the tree (which is reported to be the impetus for this transition), they won't be able to be licensed under the CDDL alone. Plus, depending upon the final compatibility rules in the GPLv3 (which are still in flux), the CDDL may not be able to be combined with GPLv3-licensed code - so the CDDL won't apply to anything that uses the GPLv3 components - only the GPLv3 would apply. Hence, CDDL usage will diminish and will eventually be removed entirely as more and more GPLv3-only code is incorporated. This is what Mozilla has been fighting in its source tree - as certain developers only license their work under GPLv2, they can't distribute their patches under MPL or LGPL. It makes a giant mess out of distribution that they are still trying to effectively sort out. (I believe their solution has been to reject such contributions from the 'core' product.) So, I think a dual-license will hurt OpenSolaris more than it would help it. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Apache2 included with Open Solaris
On 1/10/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to documentation it should. But I didn't manage to compile it on snv_54. I installed openldap from Blastwave and compiled against it - worked perfectly. I don't have a snv_54 build locally, but if you can provide the compilation errors, I might be able to help. (I'd recommend using httpd 2.2.4 which was just released.) btw: has anyone tried Sun's webserer as WebDAV server for Windows clients? I'm playin with Apache 2.x + web_dav + web_davfs + mod_encoding + mod_auth_ldap + ... and it's a nightmare. Subversion serves just fine to Windows boxes from Solaris. Adding LDAP authentication is fairly trivial (once it compiles). What's the problem? -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Re[4]: [osol-discuss] Apache2 included with Open Solaris
On 1/10/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With such configure (openldap) it works fine bash-3.00# ./configure --prefix=/opt/apache2.0.59 --enable-layout=Apache --enable-mods-shared=all --enable-suexec --enable-ssl --with-ssl=/usr/sfw --with-mpm=prefork --enable-headers --enable-dav --disable-cgi --enable-dav-fs --enable-so -with-ldap-include=/opt/csw/include/ --with-ldap --with-ldap-lib=/opt/csw/lib/ --enable-ldap --enable-auth-ldap You really ought to try 2.2.4 - not 2.0.59. LDAP support was only experimental (if that) in 2.0.x. In 2.2.0, LDAP is fully supported. Undefined first referenced symbol in file libiconv_close /apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr-util/.libs/libaprutil-0.so libiconv_open /apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr-util/.libs/libaprutil-0.so libiconv /apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr-util/.libs/libaprutil-0.so ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to .libs/htpasswd *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `htpasswd' Current working directory /apache/httpd-2.0.59/support *** Error code 1 I don't know how your setup is, but I'd try adding '--without-iconv' to your configure line. Anyway if I do not specify openldap libraries I got below errors: ... bash-3.00# ./configure --prefix=/opt/apache2.0.59 --enable-layout=Apache --enable-mods-shared=all --enable-suexec --enable-ssl --with-ssl=/usr/sfw --with-mpm=prefork --enable-headers --enable-dav --disable-cgi --enable-dav-fs --enable-so --with-ldap --enable-ldap --enable-auth-ldap bash-3.00# make [...] Building shared: mod_ldap.la mod_auth_ldap.la /apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=compile cc -g-DSOLARIS2=11 -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_REENTRANT-I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr/include -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr-util/include -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/srclib/apr-util/xml/expat/lib -I. -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/os/unix -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/server/mpm/prefork -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/http -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/filters -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/proxy -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/include -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/generators -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/server -I/usr/sfw/include/openssl -I/usr/sfw/include -I/apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/dav/main -prefer-pic -c util_ldap.c touch util_ldap.slo util_ldap.c, line 290: undefined symbol: LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_HARD util_ldap.c, line 291: undefined symbol: LDAP_OPT_X_TLS util_ldap.c, line 1605: undefined symbol: LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_CACERTFILE cc: acomp failed for util_ldap.c *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `util_ldap.slo' Current working directory /apache/httpd-2.0.59/modules/experimental That code only gets triggered if APR-util thinks you have the OpenLDAP libraries - not the Solaris libraries. Have you tried deleting your config.cache (if it exists)? But, really, using 2.2.4 would probably do the trick. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Apache2 included with Open Solaris
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:17:02AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: However, after quick glance at documentation, it looks like combination webdav + authtype digest + ldap is not supported. This is bad :( Oh, yah. The problem is that you can't really have LDAP handle digest as the password is never sent over the wire with digest - so you have nothing to authenticate to LDAP with. So, you'd have to come up with a custom password authentication scheme to support digest. Um, patches welcomed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] =) -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Apache2 included with Open Solaris
On 1/9/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Off the top of my head one problem area that might be present here is with LDAP library needs to be used, does this stuff work with the Mozilla LDAP library - which is basically what libldap.so.5 in the ON consolidation is - or does it depend on OpenLDAP ? AFAIK, mod_auth_ldap, and more specifically the APR-util LDAP wrapper, works just fine with the built-in Solaris libraries (which I believe are the Mozilla libraries). HTH. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Main OS/Net repository - based on Subversion or Mercurial ? / was: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Distributed source codemanagement selection, draft
On 5/2/06, Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, both FreeBSD and NetBSD currently use CVS for their projects and while there are known issues with CVS, so far evaluations of other tools (ie. SVN) have failed to produce compelling reasons to switch. Almost all FreeBSD developers use the Perforce mirror not CVS. So, it's not surprising that they wouldn't want to switch to Subversion...yet. FWIW, we have several Subversion developers who are working full-time on merge tracking right now (CollabNet and Google employees). It should be in the 1.5 release towards the end of this year. Merge tracking is the only significant feature that Perforce has that Subversion doesn't yet. Plus, once you have high-quality merge tracking capabilities, multi-master synchronization may turn out to come along for relatively cheap. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
On 5/1/06, Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best thing a list can do is to stick with whatever choice it makes when it is first created, for better or worse. The worst you can do is to decide to change the behaviour at some point in the future. +1. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: Subversion in Solaris / was: Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Distributed source codemanagement selection, draft
On 4/9/06, Roland Mainz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW: When subversion will become a part of Solaris I'd like to propose a project which looks at some platform-specific optimisations for subversion, including some hacks to libsvn_wc (the code which handles the subversion working copy) to make it faster and employ XATTR files instead of the .svn/ directories... With my Subversion hat on, eww. FWIW, the upcoming SVN 1.4 has a plethora of WC optimizations. No more XML, a lot less files per WC (down to just the local text-base plus a smaller number of constant files), etc. HTH. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
On 5/2/06, Stephen Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would very much like to eliminate the second and subsequent list name inclusions from subject lines. Are there a substantial number of people filtering on anything other than the first included list name? (And have done so in an order-of-arrival-neutral fashion?) Lucky for you, Mailman is open source. ;-) You could add an option that allows per-user subject munging (ideal, but probably more than 15 minutes of work) or just tweak the regex in Handlers/CookHeaders.py to remove second and subsequent []s in the subject lines. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [website-discuss] Re: Propose removing [] prefixes in Subject
On 5/2/06, Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As one of those who dissented from the change, I think it's a great idea to offer the subscribing user choice here. I had a brief write-up that detailed how to generally do this - but removed it before I posted my last message - but since others brought it up too...here's the gist: - Enable personalization of the list (option that makes each recip get one message) - Tweak Handlers/Decorate.py to take in a new subscriber option and restore the subject line: if mlist.getMemberOption(member, do_not_mungesubject): msg[Subject] = msgdata[origsubj] - Add UI opts to control the do_not_mungesubject subscriber option. HTH. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation
On 4/20/06, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great ideas for OpenSolaris participation in the Google Summer of Code, guys. The list of participating organizations at Google's site is growing, but so far OpenSolaris is not approved yet. I think we need one page to list all these project ideas to show Google what we have to offer (many organizations are doing this). Ben opened a page on the Genunix wiki: http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Summer_of_Code I put up some content and a basic structure (follow the structure or dump it for a better one :) ... it's just a start) and some placeholders for more projects and ideas. [I'm currently at Google in the OSPO office which is running SoC.] Google has not received any Summer of Code mentor org applications from OpenSolaris. Who sent the email application to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do we know when it was sent? (We have seen applications for Nexenta and Genesi.) Applications close on Monday, but it's very tight as is at this late date. Thanks! -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation
On 4/20/06, Jim Grisanzio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Justin. My understanding is that Simon Phipps has applied for Sun's projects and that he's been interacting with Google. I've cc'd him here. The right folks on Google's end are looking into this. Thanks! -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?
On 4/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A name is just a name; we could change it to something less hidden like techlib. There are so many projects with codenames already, are we just fighting the tide? I have raised the objections elsewhere also. Perhaps we should have a meta discussion on project and community names. Probably. In my opinion, having obscure or cute project and mailing list names makes it harder for outsiders to understand what the list is about - especially if it's a 'meta' list. We have enough obstacles to adoption that we shouldn't have to explain that 'muskoka' is where all process and tech specs must be reviewed first. -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: [tools-discuss] Distributed source code management selection, draft
On 4/7/06, Stephen Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the upcoming submissions for the freeware consolidation will be to ensure that Subversion and Mercurial are available in one or more of the standard installation scenarios. Cool! -- justin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
