On Tue, Sep 30, Paul Fisher wrote:
I have a shared library that uses routines from libuuid.so.1, and ever
since svn_95 dynamically loading the library causes the following error:
ld.so.1: beam.smp: fatal: nspr_use_zone_allocator: can't find symbol
Apparently this is related to a change
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 02:00:31PM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
This is a wild thought but perhaps we should put on the table the
option of scratching most of the language-specific localization stuff.
Or having per-locale install CDs, each with a single locale. One nice
side-effect: no longer
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:17:44PM -0500, Paul Fisher wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Is NSPR installed on your system?
Yep:
Does you application have a private
copy of NSPR linked into it?
Nope, the executable:
Use lari(1) with no options, just the executable name:
$ lari /usr
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:47:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Having an OS support more than one-language on a single medium is fairly
common, and the cost of maintaining per-language media is likely to be
prohibitive. That's probably why most vendors have adopted a Language
Pack approach
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:47:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Having an OS support more than one-language on a single medium is fairly
common, and the cost of maintaining per-language media is likely
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 03:42:16PM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
As an example, we include zh_CN and zn_TW locales in the os0805
LiveCD. Has that helped us gain any new users? I don't think so.
That's likely just politics.
But my more serious concern is that the principal OpenSolaris LiveCD
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:23:48PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Either direction has to be proven as optimal, but my guess based on
Has that been done?
Of course, perhaps this is the wrong area to focus on anyways (looking
at the analysis that was posted). If there was a way to slim down
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:13:46PM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
That's an odd comment, considering most reviews of FF3 I've seen
commends it for being both faster and leaking less memory tan its
predecessor.
See:
6755391 sqlite3 should not be built with SQLITE_DEBUG; uses access(2) too
often,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:12:26PM +, Chris Ridd wrote:
Since about build 99, I've been getting some unexpected failures when
sshing from an OpenSolaris machine to another machine using a
different username, eg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the problems only occur when I'm sshing from a
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:33:23AM +0800, Jeff Cai wrote:
I also met the problem in snv_99.
This should have been fixed in snv_101 by community.
Can you provide more details?
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:51:39PM -0800, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/gerhardhofweber/entry/ntfs_mounting_rw_on_opensolaris
I have not tried it yet, but will in the very near future.
I should take a look at it sometime. It'd be nice if this could use the
Solaris ID mapping
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:25:26AM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:51:39PM -0800, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/gerhardhofweber/entry/ntfs_mounting_rw_on_opensolaris
I have not tried it yet, but will in the very near future.
I should take a look
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:00:54AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
* Lastly, it is problematic with some FOSS licenses such as the
GPL which require a distributor of binary packages to make
available the _corresponding_ source, simply providing a URL to
external sources (as proposed) is
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-13 17:23]:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
I'd just like to throw my thoughts in to the ring for this, but the
genunix page lists Binary only packages allowed as a goal..
That
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bcc'ed.]
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:19:26PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
I still wholeheartedly maintain that binary-only packages ought to be
an exception to the rule and process should try to avoid it as much as
possible.
If you don't trust binary-only packages
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:52:10PM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-13 23:24]:
So how does the reviewer make sure (with reasonable effort) that
the submitter has not injected malicious code in the binary package
he submitted?
The reviewer
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 02:05:45AM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Sounds good to me, if this is the plan then the proposal should
reflect that.
Which part of the proposal did not reflect that?
It seems to have been modified heavily since I read it. From what
I can see it does not
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:00:52PM -0700, Jim Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 02:05:45AM +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
It seems to have been modified heavily since I read it. From what I can
see
it does not mention that building/packaging takes place
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:00:52PM -0700, Jim Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
To go beyond /contrib we'll definitly need something to be done about
maintenance.
The consolidation processes (ON, SFW, X, Desktop ...) address maintainer
and support issues, and must be followed before
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:45:13AM -0800, Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Jim Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-18 08:35]:
I moved the process description onto opensolaris.org for final review:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/sw-porters/contributing/
Take a look and let me know what else
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:03:23PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 18-Nov-08, at 1:40 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
My point is essentially that unless the source code is built by a
controlled system there's no way to verify that it is what the
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:09:30PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
That would be acceptable. I'd still prefer the code to be built on an
internal machine such that we have an exact record, but I'm willing to
bend this far.
I think you'd have to insist that it be [re-]built by Sun employees
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:06:08PM +, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
I agree with all Nico points. Spec file based submissions built in a
controlled machine.
And yes, in the Community Infraestructure project of JDS we are
building exactly that.
Note: I wasn't proposing that, though I would
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:58:10PM -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
On 18-Nov-08, at 2:49 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
And using only compilers and CPU's that have somehow been certified?
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html (summarized briefly at
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 09:51:43AM -0600, Paul Fisher wrote:
This command exists on solaris, but not opensolaris, and pkg search
Does it? Where? What pkg delivers it? I cannot find a dnsdomainname
command in either Solaris Nevada nor OpenSolaris.
dnsdomainname turns up nothing. What am I
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:18:20AM -0600, James Cornell wrote:
Isn't that part of NIS or bind?
Methinks you're referring to domainname(1M), not 'dnsdomainname'.
And domainname(1M) is in both, Solaris and OpenSolaris.
Nico
--
___
indiana-discuss
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Tom Whitten wrote:
See bug 5332. I only see the problem on OpenSolaris -- not on any of the
Nevada builds.
5332 links to 1459, which claims to be fixed. What was the fix though?
___
indiana-discuss mailing
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:34:38PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Tom Whitten wrote:
See bug 5332. I only see the problem on OpenSolaris -- not on any of the
Nevada builds.
5332 links to 1459, which claims to be fixed. What was the fix though
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:19:53PM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
What are the mid/long-term plans regarding source packages?
I've always liked src.rpm's when one could download a src package and
easily produce binary package, eventually with some changes.
The new build infrastructure is
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:00:05AM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
NW IPS supports metadata for linking to: source tarballs/what not, and spec
NW files. The efforts to populate /pending and /contrib will include such
NW metadata in those packages. In theory it should be possible to pull
NW
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:08:12PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Well, it still won't give you end-user experience like 'rpm -ba
mc.src.rpm' when after a minute or so user ends up with mc.rpm binary
package.
Do you really want the end-user experience of doing pkg
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:02:56AM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
NW JDS and the projects to populate /pending and /contrib -- all could (and
NW should and will) deliver pointers to spec files for rebuilding their
NW pkgs. SFW, ON, not so much, but then who want to build from source can
NW
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:55:07AM -0500, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
I feel like I'm repeating myself: the task can be automated, and Jim
even claims it has been (I've not used that tool, so I can't confirm).
but it's not part of the spec file that tracks standard configure
options for any
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:00:19AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
FWIW, I'm planning to add support to pkgbuild for rebuilding
packages from IPS, as soon as filters are working.
What I'd like to do is, include the spec file, patches
and sources in all IPS packages
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:31:51PM -0500, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
okay .. regardless of the consolidation - where do we specify standard
configure/build options for consistency in the spec file and what
macros are available to help reproduce a build? for rpm you can see:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:55:00PM -0500, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
We're using spec files in the Source Juicer and pkg factory projects.
The spec files for Source Juicer may well be online now (though a
quick look at the dtip repository does not show any), but the ones
for pkg factory are
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:16:41PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
Thanks Doug, IEEE, and TOG!
+1e6.
This is great news, and a great relief.
Thanks!
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:54:57PM +1300, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:09 -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Our plan had been to include URLs to spec files in the pkg metadata.
That's useful for someone who wants to find the latest spec file,
but not sufficient
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:27:58AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
I'd hope we don't include the spec files or patches or sources in the
package itself. I understand the lofty goal here, but I personally
don't feel it's worth the overhead.
Is it such a huge overhead?
For an individual
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:40:33AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:27:58AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
I'd hope we don't include the spec files or patches or sources in the
package itself. I understand the lofty goal here, but I personally
don't
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:33:23PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
I'm pretty sure we are saying the same thing then:
set info.spec_url = http://spec-files/foo.spec
set info.source_url = http://source-files/foo.tar.gz
Right?
Yes. That's what I want. And that's what I was pretty sure was the
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:09:03AM +1300, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:56 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
Putting the sources into the package by content is too specific to your
consolidation's construction methods.
Hmm... I would think that putting a url to a spec file
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:15:07AM +1300, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 12:01 -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Hmmm, I don't think we should do that. We've talked before about having
an SVN or HG repository to hold spec files, source tarballs, ... and
having URLs to them
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:59:32PM +1300, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 14:24 -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Suppose we could: a) include everything you need to re-build from source
as a facet and, crucially, b) that we could have facets that are not
even downloaded
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:42:25AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Since most open source licenses make the distributor responsible for
providing the source, pointing to where you got the tarball from usually
isn't sufficient to fulfil license requirements. As an example, I seem
to recall the
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 09:43:24AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The GPLv2 allows you to charge for media. Strangely enough it doesn't
talk about online bandwidth. Using physical media is out for a build-
...
According to their FAQ:
Yes, FAQ. But even without
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:38:28AM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:15:38 -0600
Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote:
The GPLv2 allows you to charge for media. Strangely enough it doesn't
talk about online bandwidth. Using physical media is out for a build-
from
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:38:33PM -0500, Tom Georgoulias wrote:
Absolutely. I've been hacking on a zfs replication shell script that I
found on a blog and trying to make it work for my setup. What you've
said has just reassured me that the headaches I was running into aren't
just a
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:04:55PM -0500, Tom Georgoulias wrote:
Renames *were* hard--I never got that working so I gave up. I was
encouraged to see your suggestion of a user-defined properties, I was
trying to use them to get around the renaming problem and wasn't sure if
that was too
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:31:53PM +0100, Nico Sabbi wrote:
my first impression of the new package repository is just one:
disorder.
Files are spread all over the
place: /etc/apache, /usr/apache, /var/apache and so on and on.
That's not the result of the new packaging system (by which I
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15:33AM +0100, casper@sun.com wrote:
hello all,
i'm surprised that gnu chmod is installed, what are the advantages
comparing to solaris chmod?
It's very annoying when using ACLs.
No reason; several of the GNU utilities are broken in some way in Solaris;
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:51:26AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The known bad interactions with GNU utilities in the default path have been
tracked so far at:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/showdependencytree.cgi?id=576hide_resolved=0
Thanks. It looks like ls(1) and chmod(1) vis-a-vis ZFS
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:36:05PM +0100, Jan Friedel wrote:
RBAC related:
Since I'm using the /usr/xpg4/bin path as the primary one, I was
little bit confused, that, event thought I have the Object
Access Management profile applied on my account, I'm not able
to
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:31:03PM +0100, I. Szczesniak wrote:
I believe it is a mistake to concentrate on the GNU coreutils tools.
Opensolaris would alienate users from OSX and BSD platforms with an
API which roughly changes every six months. It'd be better if
Opensolaris starts its own
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:05:42PM -0500, Brian Utterback wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one
or a GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch
them back and forth.
I agree, but that knob should be made to work via shell startup
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:37:09AM +0100, C. Bergström wrote:
This thread seems to have become unproductive.. Can one of the /leaders/
(if there are any around) please bring this back on track, move this in
private or end it.
I agree. A religious war about GNU vs. Solaris isn't going to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
GNU one? If you want both, you have to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Brian Smith wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
I see no problem with that, provided those issues are addressed
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:14:01PM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
modifications fed back upstream ... snip
Sometimes that doesn't work. GRUB is a good example.
I don't know whether GRUB is a good example, as I'm not up on
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:16:45PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:21:17PM -0800, Brock Pytlik wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Can't it be in entire?
It is in entire, but that doesn't mean it's part of the default
installation. I believe it was removed from the default install because
of space issues on the CD for 2008.11
If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
position becomes a fait accompli.
Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
or even a desirable - goal.
Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
example, GNU and
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:26:47PM -0800, david.co...@sun.com wrote:
Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
example, GNU and Solaris ls(1) have one option conflict: -v.
So a /usr/gnu/bin will be needed, even if the number of such conflicts
is very low.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:20:04PM -0800, George Koutras wrote:
Hi to all,
I updated to 106 and everything looks smooth, except for firefox. When I try
to launch firefox I get the message: The application has been updated but
your version of SQLite is too old and the application
can not
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:52:39PM -0800, Martin Gomez wrote:
Recibi el disco cd de Opensolaris 2008.11 y lo instale en mi disco
duro en forma compartida con Win xp.
¡Excelente!
Creando una particion especial para Opensolaris del tal mado que mi
dsico duro quedo como sigue:
C sistema Win xp
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:38:31PM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Could you move(mv) the clone to a new disc and boot it up? Or does
the COW kick in during mv... I'm not clear what happens.
BZT = wrong:
As others have answered this is all about ZFS, and much has been written
elsewhere
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:15:45AM -0700, Matt Ingenthron wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Matt Ingenthron wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
As noted in:
PSARC/2005/185 Enabling serendipitous discovery
PSARC/2007/048 Include GNU coreutils 6.7
PSARC/1991/061 Packaging rules for system extensions
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:34:52PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
I myself am not sure where third-party pkgs should install into. FOSS
could always be integrated directly into OpenSolaris via the
consolidation process, or perhaps via /contrib, in which case it will
end
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:37:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
a b wrote:
It appears that these architectural issue have not been thought throughly.
The OpenSolaris distribution, as you are aware, is experimenting with
changes that have not yet made it through ARC. Regardless, I don't see
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:11:48PM +0200, a b wrote:
Consider that if I deliver my software in /usr (as a 3rd party
unbundled applications vendor), I run an extremely high risk of:
a) being overwritten by IPS, respectively your own updates
b) my software overwriting your software.
I
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 06:09:23PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree. The
namespace issues are important. At the very least IPS needs to deal
sanely with:
- two or more pkgs in one repository with actions
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:13:15PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
And: what happens, when package A delivers for example /etc/ipf.conf,
and package B wants to deliver entries into that file, such as
additional firewall rules, or removal of firewall rules?
That file is what we'd call an editable
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:31:17PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
I don't necessarily think it a bug to allow pkgs with conflicting
actions into a repository _as long as_ they are treated as mutually
exclusive (including from incorporations).
I'll put it this way. It's
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 10:25:06AM +0200, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:55:50 -0500
Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote:
Not necessarily. A registry, for example, would allow us to solve
that problem.
Would this be something like the windows registry? I sure
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:33:01AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
RBAC offers a lot of functionality, but without pfexec using password
authentication, I don't think it is the best fit as used here.
Arguably, RBAC and the use of roles offers better security than sudo
depending on the setup you
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 02:05:29AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
Not necessarily. A registry, for example, would
allow us to solve that
problem.
Does such a solution exist as of now?
Technically, yes. Roughly: the ARC is the registrar and the product
itself is the registry database.
But
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 01:58:41PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
Update manager does an image update which (for now) updates an alternate
BE. So, it's technically correct when it tells you that an update is
available for the current BE just after you've updated it. Whether
that's a helpful
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:00:35AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, as of right now, SMF provides
no capability for a one time run, so getting post-installation code to
run via SMF is tricky, with one svcadm refresh, and one svccfg delete.
This thread's been
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 05:15:28AM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
The only reasoning you've provided so far, are there
are scripts so it
won't work. Again, I see nothing in those scripts
*that is actually
needed for the driver to work on 2009.06* that IPS
does not provide.
OK, fair
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:17:51PM +0200, Bernd Schemmer wrote:
That is far from a given. In the short run, it requires some
learning, but in the long run it will be a more stable execution
environment than any sort of scripting in SVR4 packages ever provided.
Hmm, I'm not sure about
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:32:09PM +0200, Bernd Schemmer wrote:
Thus, not only is there no practical way to emulate SVR4 preinstall/
preremove/checkinstall pkg scripting with IPS, there's no reason to.
That's the reason why I don't like the new approach:
Someone decided what is useful and
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:53:13PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote:
You can implement this w/ actuators in IPS; it will require
a SMF service to be running to handle your post-installation
tasks. Note that packages built this way will actually work
on alternate root install, with Oracle
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:59:28PM +0200, a b wrote:
I think what's missing there is a tool to make the above simpler:
something that takes your start method, SMF FMRI, pkg FMRIs and
incorporation FMRI and does the rest for you. Even better, if this work
can be done once and made to
I just saw the push notification go by for:
6851603 IPS needs a bit of help for RBAC
5100566 lib/libsecdb/Makefile uses non-unique temp files
The fix is very much the sort of thing I've advocated in the past. It
re-uses SVR4 CAS scripting, but in the context of a single SMF service
that will
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 05:18:07PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
out of interest, what exactly is the problem with having more BEs than
you think you need?
I suspect one answer is: the need to reboot into the new BEs in order to
use the software. If the pkgs being installed don't require a
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:30:34PM -0700, Sriram Natarajan wrote:
Thought, I would share some of the pains I had to go through today to
simply get a new version of subversion my system for some of my
development work. Unfortunately, OpenSolaris 2009.06 (build 111) - my
primary workstation
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:52:09PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
Sriram Natarajan wrote:
Hi
Thought, I would share some of the pains I had to go through today to
simply get a new version of subversion my system for some of my
development work. Unfortunately, OpenSolaris 2009.06 (build 111) -
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:57:01AM -0700, R. Nippes wrote:
I put LANG=de_DE.UTF8 into /etc/TIMEZONE aka /etc/default/init of my zone,
TZ=Europe/Berlin
CMASK=022
LANG=de_DE.UTF-8
but locale outputs:
r...@mysql01:~# locale
LANG=
LC_CTYPE=C
LC_NUMERIC=C
LC_TIME=C
LC_COLLATE=C
88 matches
Mail list logo
