Andrew M. Hettinger ahettin...@prominic.net wrote:
That said, I think what Nick was talking about was not a build failure, but
common issues IPS itself can have. I've seen a few (rare) times where it
will just spit out a call-stack. Haveing a goto page of potental problems
and
Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Andrew M. Hettinger ahettin...@prominic.net wrote:
That said, I think what Nick was talking about was not a build failure, but
common issues IPS itself
Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
I've recently redone this on my laptop with no problems, following my
own logs on wiki and bugtracker; the only substantial blocker was and is
the /sbin/sh being a symlink to ../usr/bin/ksh or somesuch. System
fails to boot itself when /usr is separate.
On 5 September 2012 11:14, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Linking /sbin/sh to ksh definitely was a mistake and I plan to fix this in
SchilliX-ON since a longer time. Before I introduce my fix, I will first
replace the unmaintained Bourne Shell from Sun sources by the
Jonathan Adams t12nsloo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 September 2012 11:14, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Linking /sbin/sh to ksh definitely was a mistake and I plan to fix this in
SchilliX-ON since a longer time. Before I introduce my fix, I will first
replace the
On 05/09/2012 01:30, Alasdair Lumsden wrote:
I've actually realised it would be really useful if there was a
single document explaining all this stuff, a kind of In the
beginning there was... style walk through of how things came to be.
I'll try to write one over the next few weeks and put it
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
On 04/09/2012 22:42, mag...@yonderway.com wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:25:39 -0500, Andrew M. Hettinger
ahettin...@prominic.net wrote:
One of the biggest issues here isn't that packages are particularly
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
2012-09-04 22:25, Andrew M. Hettinger пишет:
was kept in /bin and /sbin that did not depend on anything. This was
done to allow you to NFS mount everything else. IIRC the decision was
made to go ahead and make them dynamicly
Andrew Hettinger
http://Prominic.NET || ahettin...@prominic.net
Tel: 866.339.3169 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.2888 x.110 (int'l)
Fax: 866.372.3356 (toll free) -or- +1.217.356.3356(int'l)
Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote on 09/04/2012 05:39:58 PM:
On 04/09/2012
I think that Andrew want to use a unified build system, instead of the
loose confederation of radically different systems that's currently in
use.
I agree. A unified build system is necessary. The only question is:
what should it be?
Makefile-based, like ports/pkgsrc/oi-build?
specfile-based?
On 5 Sep 2012, at 18:04, Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Andrew want to use a unified build system, instead of the
loose confederation of radically different systems that's currently in
use.
I agree. A unified build system is necessary. The only question is:
what
Someone thought it would be a good idea to have a unified build system
across consolidations.
I think it's a pretty good idea to standardize on one build system.
I'm merely asking which one would be preferred by the community
(assuming the community would be willing to standardize).
On Wed, Sep
Hi Nick,
On 05/09/2012 18:49, Nick Zivkovic wrote:
Someone thought it would be a good idea to have a unified build system
across consolidations.
I think it's a pretty good idea to standardize on one build system.
I'm merely asking which one would be preferred by the community
(assuming the
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nick,
On 05/09/2012 18:49, Nick Zivkovic wrote:
Someone thought it would be a good idea to have a unified build system
across consolidations.
I think it's a pretty good idea to standardize on one build
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As a nice hint: The new Bourne Shell compiles and runs on Cygwin (thanks to no
longer depending on sbrk(2)) and if you use it to interpret autoconf scripts,
this is 3x faster than bash.
This sounds great. How does its performance compare with
Andrew Stormont andyjstorm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 Sep 2012, at 18:04, Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Andrew want to use a unified build system, instead of the
loose confederation of radically different systems that's currently in
use.
I agree. A unified
Andrew Gabriel illu...@cucumber.demon.co.uk wrote:
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
Agreed. Also, I see that /opt and /usr/$consolidation overlap in terms
of their purpose.
For example we have /usr/X11. According to `man filesystem` /opt is
meant to hold add-on/third-party software.
/opt
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As a nice hint: The new Bourne Shell compiles and runs on Cygwin (thanks to
no
longer depending on sbrk(2)) and if you use it to interpret autoconf
scripts,
this is 3x faster than bash.
On 09/ 5/12 11:49 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I asume that what you call userland is the successor for sfw.
Yes.
The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare
Which is why it was completely thrown out and Userland started with a
new design from scratch.
--
-Alan
On 09/ 5/12 10:55 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
Basically, I'm asking if it is better to have one convention
(everything in /usr/$consolidation) instead of two (some things in
/usr/$consolidation and others in /opt/$consolidation)?
There's never been any rule about
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 09/ 5/12 10:55 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Nick Zivkovic wrote:
Basically, I'm asking if it is better to have one convention
(everything in /usr/$consolidation) instead of two (some things in
On 05/09/2012 19:49, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare:
- It only works if the whole set of tools has already been
installed in /usr on the compiling system before with exactly
the same version as the one that is going to be compiled.
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
On 09/ 5/12 11:49 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I asume that what you call userland is the successor for sfw.
Yes.
The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare
Which is why it was completely thrown out and Userland started
On 05/09/2012 21:12, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Correct. Userland was designed from the ground up for IPS, since that was the
only packaging system in use when it was created.
Nexenta enhanced their fork of userland to support generating .deb
packages, so adding SVR4 probably wouldn't be too
On 05/09/2012 21:22, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
What do you suggest as a better replacement for this?
Oh it's easy - you strip most of them out after the file is generated.
Very easy to do with a post-install sed rule in the build recipe.
The bulk of them are pointless optimisations that aren't
Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/2012 19:49, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The buildsystem for sfw is a nightmare:
- It only works if the whole set of tools has already been
installed in /usr on the compiling system before with exactly
the same version as the
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Andrew Stormont wrote:
The only thing you really need for extensions to build is the -I bit. The rest
is Sun Studio pedantry.
These sorts of scripts are just broken. What it really should do is
check the value of CC before adding any compiler specific flags.
Patching
On 05/09/2012 21:36, Andrew Stormont wrote:
These sorts of scripts are just broken. What it really should do is check the
value of CC before adding any compiler specific flags. Patching it to do that
would be my preferred way of solving the problem.
That works too.
The thing is they're
Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Which is why it was completely thrown out and Userland started with a
new design from scratch.
But as this did not exist before Spring 2010, I asume that the new system
is
not able to create native Svr4 packages.
Correct.
On 05/09/2012 21:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that you missunderstand the problem.
The main issue is that the build system linked against /usr instead of linking
against something like: /home/user/proto/usr
userland-gate still links against
My thoughts. Remember, they are probably only worth what you paid for
them! ;p
Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote on 09/01/2012 10:42:14 AM:
Yes. I am more interested in contributing drivers and the like. As far
as packages go, to be honest, I've experienced torture at the hands of
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Andrew M. Hettinger
ahettin...@prominic.net wrote:
My thoughts. Remember, they are probably only worth what you paid for them!
;p
Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote on 09/01/2012 10:42:14 AM:
Yes. I am more interested in contributing drivers and the
I've actually realised it would be really useful if there was a single
document explaining all this stuff, a kind of In the beginning there
was... style walk through of how things came to be.
I'll try to write one over the next few weeks and put it on the wiki, as
it would probably help new
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Zivkovic zivkovic.n...@gmail.com wrote:
2) document every single IPS failure and either fix the
packages or the IPS code (depend on what caused the failure), and
First thought here is that it needs to be in the bug tracker, but that may
not be easily
I was just reading through the oi-dev archives (about the resignation
of the OI lead) where a former Sun engineer, claimed that the efforts
made by sun to port OpenSolaris to the desktop/laptop platforms (by
adding wifi support, by making a new audio system, etc), only hurt Sun
in the long run,
35 matches
Mail list logo
