Eric Sultan:
>
> How does a device driver know that it's a primary device?
> There's no harm, is there, if a driver fails to publish this property?
On x86, the default graphics device is the one for which the SBIOS
has enabled I/O cycles on the entire devices path. Only Xorg(libpciaccess)
on X86
I updated the name of the property based on the discussion above.
--
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
"primary-controller" frame buffer driver property
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 08:22 -0800, John Fischer wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> According to the sunldap case that you site the LDAP
> interface was declared Evolving. This translates into
> either Uncommitted or Committed depending. Since this
> was reviewed by PSARC it is most likely Committed but
> check
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
Nagios
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Deepti Vaidya
1.3 Date of This Document:
05 No
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
NRPE - nagios-addons
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Spoorthy Shankarmurthy
1.3 Date of This
John Fischer wrote:
> /usr/etc/nrpe.cfg - NRPE Configuaration file
/usr/etc ? Shouldn't that be just /etc?
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
LSARC,
I am sponsoring this fast track for Deepti Vaidya. The case
directory contains this included proposal. I have set the
timer for Thursday, November 12th, 2009.
This project proposes to bundled Nagios into a Minor release
of Solaris. Nagios will monitor hosts and services on the
network.
This case seems incomplete. It does not specify the plugins delivered,
what system interfaces they use to monitor the system, the interfaces
used to deliver status, the interfaces that the user must interact with
to configure this thing, etc.
What is its relationship with apache? (there are subt
LSARC,
I am sponsoring this fast track for Spoorthy Shankarmurthy. The
case directory contains this proposal and a couple of architecture
diagrams. I have set the timeout for Thursday, November 12th, 2009.
This project proposes to include the NRPE Nagios addon into a Minor
release of Solaris.
John Fischer wrote:
> Interfaces
> ==
> nagios user is created. Uncommitted.
> nagios group is created. Uncommitted.
> nagcmd group id created. Uncommitted.
Why are two new groups needed ?
What reserved gid and uid are used ?
> SUNWnagiosr and SUNWnagiosu packages
Bart Smaalders writes:
> George Vasick wrote:
> > Yes, you are 100% corrected on the studio side. For gcc, the build uses
> > the compiler installed on the live system. I don't know why the two are
> > handled differently. We do need to accommodate Solaris builds, however.
> > They are one
John Fischer wrote:
> Interfaces
> ==
> nagios user is created. Uncommitted.
> nagios group is created. Uncommitted.
> nagcmd group id created. Uncommitted.
Why are two new groups needed ?
What reserved gid and uid are used ?
Is Nagios started up under the nagios user a
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> John Fischer wrote:
>> SUNWnagiosr and SUNWnagiosu packages are Uncommitted.
>
> Given that SXCE will no longer exist very soon and OpenSolaris IPS
> collapses these down we should probably stop pretending we need separate
> root and usr packages.
And given that IPS w
John Fischer wrote:
>The SUNWnrper and SUNWnrpeu packages are Uncommitted.
Same comment as on the main Nagios case lets stop pretending we need
separate root and usr packages.
>The remaining interfaces are Volatile.
>
> Exported Interfaces
> ---
> /usr/bin/nrpe - NRP
Sorry for the late replies: I had connectivity problems during OSDevCon in
Dresden and much less time than expected, so only now catching up on my
mail.
George Vasick writes:
> Rainer Orth wrote:
> > George Vasick writes:
> >
> >>> How's the progress with moving ON (and perhaps other consolidatio
George Vasick writes:
> Corrected a typo in the attachment. SUNWgccruntime432 will be deleted.
> SUNWgccruntime, which is part of GCC 3.4.3, will be retained.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> George Vasick wrote:
> > Please find a revised proposal attached addressing the following feedback:
> >
>
"Garrett D'Amore" writes:
> Yes. I think part of the problem here is that Sun decides the rules for
> ON, ultimately. We might like to pretend that this is a community
> project, but really there is still a benevolent dictator in the form of
> the C-Team, which is at present a Sun entity.
>
Ada language support was not addressed, too. This is the second time
the compiler project team is not implementing support.
How do I appeal a PSARC case?
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:04 PM, wrote:
> George Vasick writes:
>
>> Corrected a typo in the attachment. SUNWgccruntime432 will be deleted.
=?KOI8-R?B?z8zYx8Egy9LZ1sHOz9fTy8HR?= writes:
> Ada language support was not addressed, too. This is the second time
> the compiler project team is not implementing support.
I think this (and Java support) could and should be separate cases. Most
likely, the community can help here. Especially
ro at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" writes:
>
>
>> Yes. I think part of the problem here is that Sun decides the rules for
>> ON, ultimately. We might like to pretend that this is a community
>> project, but really there is still a benevolent dictator in the form of
>
? wrote:
> Ada language support was not addressed, too. This is the second time
> the compiler project team is not implementing support.
>
> How do I appeal a PSARC case?
First the case has to be completed. In the case of missing language
support, I don't see anything to appeal
The compiler project team has promised in spoken and written word to
deliver Ada support with the next case. LSARC/2009/575 is this next
case.
Should a project team allowed to promise a place in heaven, later
break their word and get away with this?
2009/11/5 Rainer Orth :
> =?KOI8-R?B?z8zYx8Egy9L
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/edit/Community+Group+arc/ARCAgenda/
= OpenSolaris ARC Agenda
= TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:
(866)545-5223 (Within US)
(215)446-3661 (International)
ACCESS CODE 939-55-86
Times are US/Pacific Timezone
ARC meetings are recorded.
11/10/2009
10 min Open ARC Busines
? wrote:
> Ada language support was not addressed, too. This is the second time
> the compiler project team is not implementing support.
>
> How do I appeal a PSARC case?
Well, first the case has to be closed. If it's not closed, then any
call to "appeal" is greatly premature.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Jim Walker wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>
>> Jim Walker wrote:
>>>
>>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Can you add *which* kstats are being used? ?Individual kstats are
normally not documented, and some of them are more volatile than others.
?If
James Carlson writes:
> Secondly, if the case is constructed in a way that it doesn't block
> someone else from solving the problem on their own, then calls to appeal
> may well be ignored. For example, if the project team chooses not to
> deliver an Ada compiler, but if (after the decision) anyo
Stephen Hahn writes:
> > > This means we need verexec:
> > >
> > > http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/verexec_1_a_simple_execute
> >
> > Interesting, although I see a couple of problems (and haven't followed
> > pkg-discuss due to its enormous volume). One thing is obvious, though:
> > even with ve
I am sponsoring this case on behalf of Louis Tsien. The case seeks
patch binding for a Solaris 10 Update Release. Given that this case
merely carves out more FMA namespace and is supported by an approved
FMA portfolio, I consider it appropriate for self-review. If there is
disagreement, let me k
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, John Fischer wrote:
>
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> 1. Introduction
> ? ?1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
> ? ? ? ? Nagios
> ? ?1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
> ? ? ? ? Auth
> While working out the various permutations of PAM auth stacks I've
> discovered that my fasttrack was not complete in regards to new
> interfaces.
At yesterday's meeting, I asked for more time through today.
Unfortuntely, I'm not going to be able to get through this
case
On Nov 5, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> John Fischer wrote:
>>> SUNWnagiosr and SUNWnagiosu packages are Uncommitted.
>>
>> Given that SXCE will no longer exist very soon and OpenSolaris IPS
>> collapses these down we should probably stop pretending we
* Rainer Orth [2009-11-05 16:34]:
> Bart Smaalders writes:
>
> > George Vasick wrote:
> > > Yes, you are 100% corrected on the studio side. For gcc, the build uses
> > > the compiler installed on the live system. I don't know why the two are
> > > handled differently. We do need to accommoda
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:55:17PM -0500, Will Fiveash wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:40:47PM +0100, Darren Moffat wrote:
> > Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
> > > Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> > > This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> > > 1. Introduction
> >
Will Fiveash wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:55:17PM -0500, Will Fiveash wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:40:47PM +0100, Darren Moffat wrote:
>>> Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
>>>
Couple of points:
While I don't specifically advocate it, I note that Russ' pam_krb5 and
the RedHat pam_krb5 both use configuration info in krb5.conf. I
personally would think that's simpler, but probably less "pam-like".
I think you need an example of a smart-card-required configuration
w
> Exported Interfaces
> ---
>
> /etc/apache2/2.2/nagios.conf -- Uncommitted.
The above is incorrect. There are two possibilities for delivering an
apache conf file:
If installing the nagios package is intended to automatically enable
corresponding behavior in apache,
36 matches
Mail list logo
