Boyd Adamson wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
[..]
I think /opt/schily/bin/star or even the /opt/csw/bin/star is cool for me
and some others "in the know" but most folks will expect /usr/bin/star or
similar.
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
[..]
> >> I think /opt/schily/bin/star or even the /opt/csw/bin/star is cool for me
>> and some others "in the know" but most folks will expect /usr/bin/star or
>> similar.
>
> BTS: in my last mail I fogot t
--- On Fri, 12/18/09, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> From: Alan Coopersmith
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] star [was: Some Why?-Questions]
> To: "Joerg Schilling"
> Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 10:08 AM
> Joerg Schilling
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>>> The question would be how to call a just compiled "smake" later in the
>>> autmated build process from another package.
>> If your spec file for smake installs it as /usr/bin/smake, then the spec
>> file for star just calls "/usr/bin/smake",
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> > BTW: The latest version is always the best version.
>> >
>> > Jörg
>>
>> Thank you, I'll pull the most recent star/smake/cdrecord sources and get
>> it in the next release batch along with about a hundred other items.
>> Would be nice if you were to do that task of c
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > BTW: The latest version is always the best version.
> >
> > Jörg
>
> Thank you, I'll pull the most recent star/smake/cdrecord sources and get
> it in the next release batch along with about a hundred other items.
> Would be nice if you were to do that task of course, hin
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
> there is a part of the spec file where you can specify which packages
> are required to compile your package
> it's called buildrequires. what else do you need? you can even use the
> spec file you were given as an example.
> what's wrong with just /usr/bin/star ?
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > The question would be how to call a just compiled "smake" later in the
> > autmated build process from another package.
>
> If your spec file for smake installs it as /usr/bin/smake, then the spec
> file for star just calls "/usr/bin/smake", provided you listed it in
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> Also, what rev is this ? I have been running this for a while and it
>> rocks :
>>
>> $ /opt/schily/bin/star --version
>> star: star 1.5a89 (i386-pc-solaris2.8)
>
> Why don't you use the recent version. Blastwave has a version 1.5 but it
> is
> really the 1.5.1 as I j
On 17/12/2009 23:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
ken mays wrote:
Ref: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/files/3117/7545/specs/star.spec
It is most unlikely that this will create a useful result.
well, it is a start.
I doubt there should be any big issues in making it build under the SJ.
there is a part of the spec file where you can specify which packages
are required to compile your package
it's called buildrequires. what else do you need? you can even use the
spec file you were given as an example.
what's wrong with just /usr/bin/star ?
nacho
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>
>> perhaps you should integrate smake into jucr first and then have the
>> spec file for star BuildRequire it? and while you're at it, you can
>> place it in /usr where it should be?
>
> Well, smake compiles without the need for a "make" p
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
> perhaps you should integrate smake into jucr first and then have the
> spec file for star BuildRequire it? and while you're at it, you can
> place it in /usr where it should be?
Well, smake compiles without the need for a "make" program as it first
creates a boos
perhaps you should integrate smake into jucr first and then have the
spec file for star BuildRequire it? and while you're at it, you can
place it in /usr where it should be?
nacho
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> ken mays wrote:
>
>> Ref: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/fil
Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> > Ref: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/files/3117/7545/specs/star.spec
> >
> > Well, congrats on getting it into the SourceJuicer system and I think it
> > is passing.
> >
> > Do we want star v1.5.1 version to review as the final spec??
>
> Also, can we get that in /usr ?
>
>
ken mays wrote:
> Ref: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/files/3117/7545/specs/star.spec
It is most unlikely that this will create a useful result.
Sun make does not support constructs like:
make CC=something or similar
as it does not forward command line macros to sub-makes.
If it did, the line:
> Ref: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/files/3117/7545/specs/star.spec
>
> Well, congrats on getting it into the SourceJuicer system and I think it
> is passing.
>
> Do we want star v1.5.1 version to review as the final spec??
Also, can we get that in /usr ?
I think /opt/schily/bin/star or even the
ing
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] star [was: Some Why?-Questions]
> To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, mi...@task.gda.pl
> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 5:36 PM
> Robert Milkowski
> wrote:
>
> > As someone else has already mentioned - Joerg why
> don't y
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
As someone else has already mentioned - Joerg why don't you try to get
it into /contrib repo via Source Juicer in the first place? IMHO this
would be the fastest way to get it into Open Solaris. It would probably
make it easier to get it promote
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> As someone else has already mentioned - Joerg why don't you try to get
> it into /contrib repo via Source Juicer in the first place? IMHO this
> would be the fastest way to get it into Open Solaris. It would probably
> make it easier to get it promoted later on to mai
Hi,
As someone else has already mentioned - Joerg why don't you try to get
it into /contrib repo via Source Juicer in the first place? IMHO this
would be the fastest way to get it into Open Solaris. It would probably
make it easier to get it promoted later on to main repo if needed.
--
Rober
Hi,
As someone else has already mentioned - Joerg why don't you try to get
it into /contrib repo via Source Juicer in the first place? IMHO this
would be the fastest way to get it into Open Solaris. It would probably
make it easier to get it promoted later on to main repo if needed.
--
Rober
ken mays wrote:
> We don't. GNU tar is legacy. Your star is the answer, so let us get the
> latest star version into the package repository!
OK!
> > > True. I think star handles file sizes over 200
> > terabytes as well. Right?
> >
> > ??? How do you get to this number and why do you ask at
>
--- On Thu, 12/17/09, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
>
> > > I see absolutely no need for GNU tar. What
> features are
> > > unique to GNU tar that
> > > "require" GNU tar?
> >
> > Well GNU tar is just a tool so 'requirements' and a
> tool based on those requirements is not so much in equality.
> Mos
ken mays wrote:
> > I see absolutely no need for GNU tar. What features are
> > unique to GNU tar that
> > "require" GNU tar?
>
> Well GNU tar is just a tool so 'requirements' and a tool based on those
> requirements is not so much in equality. Most FOSS developers utilizing
> build management
--- On Thu, 12/17/09, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
> From: Joerg Schilling
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] star [was: Some Why?-Questions]
> To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org, maybird1...@yahoo.com
> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 6:28 AM
> ken mays
> wrote:
>
>
ken mays wrote:
> > Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > As a voice from the community I see star as a
> > *need* and not just a want. It archive and extracts/packs just about
> > anything.
>
> It is a want. A 'need' if nothing else existed which didn't serve similar
> purposes.
> This goes back to the 'ne
>Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> > As a voice from the community I see star as a *need* and not just a want.
>> > It archive and extracts/packs just about anything.
>>
>> Since none of Sun's paying customers have expressed such a requirement to
>> Sun, it's going to be up to t
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> As a voice from the community I see star as a
> *need* and not just a want. It archive and extracts/packs just about
> anything.
It is a want. A 'need' if nothing else existed which didn't serve similar
purposes.
This goes back to the 'need' for Sun tar, GNU tar, and now
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > As a voice from the community I see star as a *need* and not just a want.
> > It archive and extracts/packs just about anything.
>
> Since none of Sun's paying customers have expressed such a requirement to
> Sun, it's going to be up to the commu
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >>> BTW: RFE 5007466 was closed, does this mean that star is now included in
> >>> Solaris?
> >> No, according to the bug database, it was closed due to lack of interest,
> >> since no one from the community responded to the mail the responsible
> >> manager sent trying
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> As a voice from the community I see star as a *need* and not just a want.
> It archive and extracts/packs just about anything.
Since none of Sun's paying customers have expressed such a requirement to
Sun, it's going to be up to the community to do much of the work to satisf
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
BTW: RFE 5007466 was closed, does this mean that star is now included
in
Solaris?
>>> No, according to the bug database, it was closed due to lack of
>>> interest,
>>> since no one from the community res
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> BTW: RFE 5007466 was closed, does this mean that star is now included in
>>> Solaris?
>> No, according to the bug database, it was closed due to lack of interest,
>> since no one from the community responded to the mai
34 matches
Mail list logo
