On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 13:26 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 14:52 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > Another +1 here.
> >
> > And for another huge reason why it's important to go hash it out ASAP,
> > consider the build systems that the other distros are planning/doing f
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 22:08 -0700, ken mays wrote:
> Going back to the comments about Nexenta build system:
Nexenta build system == Debian build system
The equation above means that NexentaOS following
Debian Policy[1] as close as possible. This is done on purpose.
Since a) we now can collaborate
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:50 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:02:20PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 22:08 -0700, ken mays wrote:
> > > Going back to the comments about Nexenta build system:
> >
> > Nexenta build
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:14 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:54:15PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > Philip Brown wrote:
> > >The thing about all that, is that it forces the machine to be closer and
> > >closer to a linux machine, until eventually, it becomes nothing more th
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 18:19 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Monday 17 April 2006 05:20 pm, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:23 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > > However, what I personally would like to see is the same thing I've
> > > always invisi
Guys,
I were thinking on what would be beneficial for every camp involved into
OpenSolaris and related development? What would be useful for NexentaOS,
BeleniX, SchilliX, marTux, SCXR, etc ?
I think having centralized place (bugzilla, bounty, project management,
calendar, etc) for OSS packages wo
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 18:15 -0400, Roberto J. Dohnert wrote:
> Im about to say a cuss word in the Solaris world and Im prepared for
> whatever flak, insults and grenades that happen to come my way. Is
> there any interest at all to port Mono, yes the Novell .NET Framework
> implementation, to O
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 01:05 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Pattison wrote:
> > > Can I just jump in and ask why there is a .org.conf file (with the dot at
> > > the start)? It confused me when I saw it as well. What does Xorg use for
> >
ON build 55 is now available for your regular APT upgrades.
To upgrade your Alpha 6 NexentaOS box do:
a) Switch your /etc/apt/sources.list to elatte-unstable.
b) Do upgrade:
# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
# reboot
Enjoy!
--
Erast
___
ope
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:24 -0800, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> Never could have ever imagined that this was going to happen, but looks like
> it is:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2084284,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL011507EP28A
>
> ( Sun to License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3)
In my opinion, this is go
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It would enable that software to benefit from us, but not us to
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:33 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 08:20 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> >>> Also, there will be an enormous amount of
> >>> software under v3 when it
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:53 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > Even GPLv2 allows that. The key is to ship closed beastie separately,
> > i.e. to download on package installation, ask EULA, etc..
>
> How would one ship the closed bi
Thank you Michelle! Great news!
NexentaOS 'unstable' APT repository updated too. Just 'apt-get upgrade'
will bring additional pages...
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 18:31 -0800, Michelle Olson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that the snv_57 update to the Man Page consolidation
> adds more tha
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 16:44 -0800, Stephen Harpster wrote:
> I think that we ("we" being all of you) should be asking ourselves what we
> think about GPLv3. What would it
> mean to the community if we dual-licensed? It's now a possibility that we
> could attach an "assembly exception"
> to the
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:18 +0800, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> In my opinion, one concern is how well GPLv3 will be accepted by the
> FreeSoftware community. In my discussions with maintainers of various
> FreeSoftware projects (currently under GPLv2), they seem unsure about
> whether the
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 21:07 -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> Stephen (or Jonathan and Rich via Stephen), what are the problems you're
> trying to solve with such a licensing change?
its obvious... world domination. :-) and license shouldn't be a stopping
factor. And that is why Mozilla dual-licensed t
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:46 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >mozilla solved it, and opensolaris is an a position to solve it too
> >since developers contributing code have to sign an agreement. I still
> >think it is a bad idea. There is simply no real benefit.
>
> It only works when people actu
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 08:16 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
> On 31-Jan-07, at 4:08 AM, Frank Van Der Linden wrote:
>
> >
> > It is true that a GPLv3 dual license may make people consider
> > OpenSolaris sooner. However, is that number of people significant,
> > and if so, does it outweigh the
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> dual licensing is trying to solve?
one little problem... to become a major OSS community out there.
And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
(comm
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >
> >
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:38 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> >> As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> >> dual licensing is trying to solve?
> >
> >
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:42 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
>
> > it to happen? None or one! And I bet Sun would like to increase outside
> > contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > foreseeable future. People
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:55 -0800, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> > > > And today, after 1.5 year of our existence we are still a minority
> > > > (community-wise), and unfortunately, this is true. Just open b56
> > > > changelog and try to find how many people outside of Sun contributed to
> > > > it to
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > I agree, re-licensing alone will not cure us entirely but will help
> > dramatically. Its a combination of steps. 1) Re-licensing, 2) get rid of
> > Contributor Agreement, 3) get rid of clos
appens. And it makes it really hard to make an
> educated guess when you haven't seen the final GPLv3 license.
>
> But we can make somewhat an educated guess now based on what we do
> know. And we can always revise it as we obtain more data.
>
>
>
> Darren J Moffat
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:24 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> > > As Dennis, Casper and others have said: What is the problem that
> > > dual licensing is
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:14 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:28 +, Darren J Moffat
> > wrote:
> > > Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:57 -0800, John Plocher
> > wrote:
> > > >> As Dennis, Casp
Kudos to Sun who made it possible! :-)
http://hg.genunix.org/onnv-gate.hg?cs=b2b402e6f340
--
Erast
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:11 +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
> > considered a minority community with almost zero participation from the
> > outside not a proof that something wrong and needs to be fixed?
>
> No, because I don't agree w
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:19 +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>
> Alan Burlison wrote On 02/01/07 09:11,:
> > Erast Benson wrote:
>
>
> >> Isn't the fact that after almost 2 years of existence we still
> >> considered a minority community with almost zero
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >But isn't (a) cdrecord GPL fork, (b) Debian nonacceptance of CDDL
> >projects and (c) FSF/GNU anti-CDDL statements not considered as a CDDL
> >failure proofs?
>
> No; it only proves that if we dual license that Debian (you?) will
> for
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:36 -0800, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > >On Jan 31, 2007, at 20:52, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 09:21 am, John
> > Sonnenschein wrote:
> > >>> If Stallman and the rest of the FSF start
> > promoting Solaris instead
> > >>> of that other kernel, an
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 16:53 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I think what's most frustrating about the closed_bins is that we don't
> >know *why* in some cases. I t would be helpful if there were a status
> >list for the closed_bins that indicated what items would never be
> >available (due to 3r
ave no plans to open
> source the associated code. Perhaps that's not good enough, but it's
> the best we can do.
>
> I will put it on my list to update the page listed above now that an
> open source version of e1000g is available.
>
> Bonnie
>
>
&g
ribed/unsubscribed during certain period? Number of downloads may
be?
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 09:55 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > I didn't say we are dead community. :-) And I said almost zero
> > participation from outside of Sun
>
>
> What are you
unfortunately, I do not see up-and-to-the-right type of numbers,
but at least numbers are steady, this gives me more hopes that it is not
to late to fix that if at all possible/needed.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:28 +, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On 2/1/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:40 -0800, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> >From the outside, this is how folks view what Sun is doing. They see some of
> the things that Sun does and scratch their head. It's not as though Sun is
> doing the wrong thing, they just don't communicate with the community very
> well w
; rules code may be checked in.
>
> It's all moving slower than I want, but it's moving. There's a lot of
> infrastructure required to do all of this, and we're bumping into some
> issues. (Ask Stephen Lau about the automounter sometime. :-)) But,
> what you as
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:07 -0800, John Sonnenschein wrote:
> Currently, there is no possible way to build an opensolaris distribution
> without including the closed-source libc_i18n.a. What this means is that a
> traditional distribution is entirely out of the question. This is entirely
> unacc
To improve quality of development releases, we decided to introduce
'unstable' ISO releases which will be available with or without
announcement over here:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso
Interested users/developers, please report bugs over here:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Bugs
Tha
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 11:52 +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
>I'm really curious - what are your plans (I mean people behind
>Nexenta)? When are you going to come out of beta status?
As far as NexentaOS (Open Source project) is concerned we will release
Beta when all targeted bugs w
you can try testing builds:
http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 01:28 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote:
> Is it soon possible download Nexenta alpha 7?
>
> Martti
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> opensolari
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I would like to see OpenSolaris buildable on OpenSolaris.
> This needs that some more pieces of code need to be at least
> redistributable.
+1
--
Erast
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
o
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 08:18 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > On Monday 19 March 2007 05:13 pm, David Lloyd wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> Indeed, apt-get for Solaris would be quite useful :P
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that Nexenta? Had to say it.
> >>
> >> I don't wan
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:22 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 08:18 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> >>
> >> But that just brings us back to Joe's original point:
> >>
> >> Isn
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:38 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Really .. its so great to see Mr. Debian here. :-)
+1 :-)
--
Erast
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
So, could we assume that NWS now will not be delivered as a separated
tarball and will be part of ON tarball?
Or this is just an effort to get dedicated web page on opensolaris.org?
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:19 -0700, John Forte wrote:
> The NWS project consists of drivers, libraries and utilities
ON/NWS build 61 is now available for your regular APT upgrades.
To upgrade your Alpha 6 NexentaOS box do:
a) Switch your /etc/apt/sources.list to elatte-unstable.
d) Do upgrade:
# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
# reboot
Enjoy!
--
Erast
___
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 14:41 -0700, MC wrote:
> The bad news is that the desktop doesn't appear upon bootup, oops :) Going
> back to do it again without the "apt-get -f install".
thanks for testing!
you need to re-install those packages which has been removed during
fix-ups (-f), so if you see:
This is great news!
Thank you. Ported GNU Parted should speed up porting of various
Linux-only installers to OpenSolaris-based distros. I'm thinking about
NexentaOS, where we could benefit from libparted and make full port of
Debian installer.. If anyone interested to start this effort, please
cont
3 little demos by Martin Man. Available as of today.
http://martinman.net/software/nexenta
Thanks Martin.
Enjoy!
--
Erast
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
$ sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -f
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 14:14 -0700, MC wrote:
> Good work :)
>
> I tried the A6 Nexenta Update Manager, but it failed saying packages were
> broken. Is there a suggested procedure to do a proper upgrade?
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
> > products, they start to associate revenue streams with them. OpenSolaris
> > should not be thought of in that regard, and more to the point, Sun
> > should focus thei
it does not support out of the box. You need to copy those. But
remember, those binaries are not re-distributable...
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:14 +0800, xiaoming zhu wrote:
> Good.
> Just a question: does it now support UTF-8 locale? or can I install
> these (language) packages distributed with So
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:32 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 16/05/07, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 22:37 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > > One problem I have is that whenever corporate gets their minds around
> > > > pr
Humans are wired creatures, keep asking themself the same question over
and over again... what's the meaning of life? :-)
Diversity unavoidable.
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 21:51 +0100, James Mansion wrote:
> Guys,
>
> It really pains me to see the sort of finger pointing going on here
> about the v
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:33 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Ian Collins wrote:
> >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/emancipation/
> >> Dale,
> >>
> >> Thanks for that link, I didn't even know the community existed.
> >>
> > It exists, but it hasn't gone very far, at least with the i18
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 12:40 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But I'd like to ask: *why* do you - all - maintain different distributions?
>
> It is obvious why I created a distribution:
>
> It was done in order to create a distribution as none did exi
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:36 +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> >
> >> One of the goals of Indiana is also to be able to boot and install from a
> >> mini cd rom image, that pulls things from the network. I
Announcing new direction of Open Source NexentaOS development:
NexentaCP (Nexenta Core Platform).
NexentaCP is Dapper/LTS-based core Operating System Platform distributed
as a single-CD ISO, integrates Installer/ON/NWS/Debian and provides
basis for Network-type installations via main or third-part
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 16:26 -0400, Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:51:08PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > More details on NexentaCP will be available soon...
>
> Is it based on Alpha7?
Alpha7 is the Desktop-oriented ISO, however they share the same main
On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 13:51 -0700, Thommy M. Malmström wrote:
> > You must be missing something..
>
> OK, but what. I didn't see any options of selecting ZFS in the install.
It is default in NCP. UFS still supported in "Manual" and "FDisk"
partitioning modes.
> > I just installed it on my MBP us
New unstable ISO of NexentaCP (Core Platform) available.
http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test2-b67_i386.iso
Changes:
* ON B67 based
* ZFS/Boot manual partitioning support implemented (in addition to
auto-partitioning). Both, Wizard and FDisk types fully supported.
* gcc/g++ now
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 15:15 -0700, MC wrote:
> You guys are making good progress :) Question: Is Nexenta capable of
> updating all of its systems from internet servers? I know you can update
> certain packages you've made, but can this build be updated to say b70 of ON
> when the time comes?
ptic package manager is really impressive
> is there a way to transform Sun package to a synaptic package?
>
> selim
>
> On 6/22/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Erast Benson wrote:
> >
> > > New unstable ISO of NexentaCP
http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test3-b68_i386.iso
Changes:
* ON b68 based
* man pages updated
--
Erast
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:52 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Moinak Ghosh wrote:
>
> >Erast Benson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Guys,
> >>
> >>I were thinking on what would be beneficial for every camp involved into
> >>OpenSolaris and related
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 02:19 -0300, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
> I think we should do what we do best, give away software, I know what
> I'm about to say is a bit impossible because of the time constraints,
> cost and others. Do we still have that band of brothers DVD? I was
> thinking about givi
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:40 -0700, changho.kim wrote:
> Solaris have tools to control service by system.
> That's called SMF
> This is important role of self healing but every solaris beginner have
> difficulty in input command by keyboard.
> if user don't familiar with keyboard, they want GUI pro
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:31 -0700, Bob Palowoda wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:40:18PM -0700, changho.kim
> > wrote:
> > > Solaris have tools to control service by system.
> > > That's called SMF
> > > This is important role of self healing but every
> > solaris beginner
> > > have difficult
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 02:22 -0700, Bob Palowoda wrote:
> > Don't you think using Java for this kind of things a
> > bit of overhead?
> > Its not like this app will be running on OSX or
> > Windows.. why bother
> > with Java then? Besides to do simple management
> > thingy natively you need
> > an e
roduced anywhere by anyone who would like to.
>
> Is this proposal in addition to the other suggestions, or in place of?
> Laura had suggested a worldwide user group effort. Are you thinking
> that that isn't a good idea? Any of the others?
> Sara
>
>
> Erast Benson
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 15:19 -0700, David Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:45:35AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > Don't you think using Java for this kind of things a bit of overhead?
> > Its not like this app will be running on OSX or Windows.. why bother
> >
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:08 +0800, Riny Qian wrote:
>
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> > Hello Riny,
> >
> > Thursday, April 27, 2006, 7:38:10 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > RQ> The Virtual Console project would provide multiple consoles and
> > RQ> switch between Xserver and consoles for Solaris. There are
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:24 +1200, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 21:13, you wrote:
> > Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > If you expect a nice OS with a rich set of features, Solaris is the
> > > > right way to go but then you should not expect everything from the
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 03:49 -0700, ken mays wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Seems like the previous post from Matty mentions more
> of the 'commercial' applications moreso than the open
> source ones.
>
> This is more of a developer support stance from the
> corporate 'commercial' ISVs/IHVs. Getting Solaris
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 00:28 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > If you want to see software for Solaris x86/x64 you
> > should consider
> > having a look to NexentaOS http://www.gnusolaris.org
> > Erast and Alex are
> > working really hard to build all software using GCC.
> > 9000+ packages
> > now...
>
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 00:40 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > From this
> > stand point, GCC-like and GNU-like environments are
> > must to have and we
> > are moving this road... aka NexentaOS
> > GNU/OpenSolaris.
>
> I just happen to be working on porting a GCC written application to Sun
> Studio 11
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 17:55 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > btw, do you know by any chance how to say Sun C compiler to always
> > respect inlines statements? I tried different switches, never worked for
> > me...
>
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:34 -0400, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 20:50 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> > No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop
> > applications as if the whole world revolved around Linux - take the
> > gnome-cd application, its link to a
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 09:36 -0700, Rich Teer wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006, UNIX admin wrote:
>
> > The point should be not to keep PORTING Linux software to Solaris,
> > but to start using Solaris as THE main development platform for open
> > source software (and freeware).
>
> I agree that the l
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But I'm asking how to make Sun C compiler do what I want?
>
> The compiler is doing what you want, within the limits of it being
> explici
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 19:15 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It's called HAL (hardware abstraction layer) and it will land in
> > > nevada shortly.
> >
> > ..and committed to upstream CVS. this w
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 13:19 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On 5/29/06, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> > > On 5/29/06, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > &g
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 19:20 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:51 -0400, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> > > On 5/29/06, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 19:28 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If it breaks CD/DVD writing (as it does on Linux) I would not call it
> > > cool.
> >
> > Not sure what you are talking about. HAL is an abstr
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 05:48 +1200, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> On 5/30/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kaiwai Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, I think the thing worse than that, are those who develop
> applications as
> > if the
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 13:22 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > Right. In addition I'd like to add that porting (C,
> > C++ code) to Nexenta
> > == porting to Solaris. Zero differences for both
> > drivers and apps. So,
> > it doesn't really matter where developers will settle
> > at Nexenta or at
> > Sol
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 04:28 -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> > yep. And lets be real here, it is much easier for us
> > to fix GCC compiler
> > to work properly on OpenSolaris than to fix or change
> > mentality of those
> > "lazy" programmers...
>
> Let's be even more realistic then -- those people sho
On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 11:40 -0700, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> > One thing I don't get yet is why vold been dropped (was it?) over
> > rmvolmgr? And will vold co-exist with rmvolmgr? But may be I just
> > misread the document...
>
> As I replied to you earlier, section 8, "Vold EOF and backward co
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 14:51 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Alan DuBoff wrote:
> > But how can you point out that JDS, X, or any other OSS is a part of
> > OpenSolaris? This makes no sense to me.
>
> How can you claim they are not? That makes no sense to me.
> They are available on opensolaris
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 08:02 -1000, David J. Orman wrote:
> To elaborate just a tad, because I can sense a bit of disagreement here,
> I'd like to clarify the "distrubutions" popping up. Even if OSOL were 100% of
> SX's source code, I mean completely available, in the same form Sun uses to
> build/p
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 09:19 -1000, David J. Orman wrote:
> > I tend to think of OpenSolaris "upstream" as of piece of code which is
> > reusable across *any* OpenSolaris-based distros. I.e. bare minimum
> > whichis enough to build minimal console-only distribution.
>
> I understand what you say,
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 15:59 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Friday 02 June 2006 07:38 am, James Carlson wrote:
> > I don't see how having an accumulation of source code that's known to
> > work on a particular operating system (and some of which that might
> > have needed to be tweaked to do so) is
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:33 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:23PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > The problem I'm seeing is that SVR4 packaging system wasn't developed to
> > inter-operate with upstream tarballs and patching system is not an e
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:45 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Erast Benson wrote:
> > Regarding this last statement. Could we expect upstream putback any time
> > soon? I think JDS and X changes must be putback into their upstreams
> > sooner or later...
>
> It's a
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:54 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:52:48PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > Switching gears a bit, though: last I heard, debian does not have a binary
> > > patching system. just a source code packaging system, that prima
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:59 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> (forgive me for changing the order of quotes a bit, but I think it makes
> sense, and still keeps original intentions...)
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:52:48PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-02 a
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 17:16 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:12:07PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:59 -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> > > for starters, the general community doesnt need to be able to
> > > "re-upload t
101 - 200 of 299 matches
Mail list logo
