Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tests that are only based on SX don't help OpenSolaris.
I think you mean that tests on SX don't help Schillix.
Do you think your Schillix distro is the OpenSolaris reference?
It sounds like that anyway.
If SX Build 18 it out, then Sun now also has an
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blastwave has all of their own set of libraries, and Sun has many of
their own in /usr/sfw even, Sunfreeware has their own, pkgsrc has theirs,
and I imagine that gentoo/portaris has their own also...
With OpenSolaris,
ghee teo wrote:
The HP testdrive program offers machines setup with different distros, for
this to work, we will need to set up machines with different favours of
OpenSolaris so that the setup times are minimum. In those cases, each owners
of the different favours of OpenSolaris should take
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
It is currently impossible to create a 100% Sun compatible libm.
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why?
Joerg Schilling wrote:
libm not only depends on ANSI C-99 but on undocumented hidden
behavior of Studio 10.
Can you report
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Originally, before Solaris turned into OpenSolaris, and when Sun was adding
to
the Companion CD, the idea some in the community had was to build upon it so
we didn't duplicate and add what was not there in hopes that it would
eventually move into the
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real solution is not in offering up a software service but in
developing a grand unified software software service that can act as
a non-OS open source software base of operations for the OpenSolaris
project. There is no reason that this can not be
On Thursday 14 July 2005 07:27 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Originally, before Solaris turned into OpenSolaris, and when Sun was
adding to the Companion CD, the idea some in the community had was to
build upon it so we didn't duplicate and add what was not
Joerg Schilling wrote:
It is currently impossible to create a 100% Sun compatible libm.
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why?
Joerg Schilling wrote:
libm not only depends on ANSI C-99 but on undocumented hidden
behavior of Studio 10.
Can you report them to us (via some wiki
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:39:13AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It seems that there are two basic reasons:
- Sun CC as well as GNU CC heavily use built in functions
for floating point support. Of course these builtins are
incompatible :-(
Some of these are for C99
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Originally, before Solaris turned into OpenSolaris, and when Sun was adding to
the Companion CD, the idea some in the community had was to build upon it so
we didn't duplicate and add what was not there in hopes that it would
eventually move into the Companion CD through
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:49:59AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The problem with that is since the Companion CD is only updated with new
Solaris releases, you'ld be stuck with whatever the latest version on a
That can be changed. I wasn't sure we were really ready for this
discussion, but
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 07:57, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:49:59AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The problem with that is since the Companion CD is only updated with new
Solaris releases, you'ld be stuck with whatever the latest version on a
That can be changed.
--- Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 07:57, Keith M Wesolowski
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:49:59AM -0700, Alan
Coopersmith wrote:
The problem with that is since the Companion CD
is only updated with new
Solaris releases, you'ld be stuck with
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 14:28, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 7/13/05, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 07:57, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:49:59AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
The problem with that is since the Companion CD is only
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 14:37, ken mays wrote:
Yet, the reality is that it is hard to lock down ONE
directory for all development libraries and headers.
...
I bring this up because it is not so simple to just
toss everything into one development directory and
call it a day (although we
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'd quite like to see a common repository created under the
opensolaris.org website though if that was possible.
I agree. It would be great if it could be birthed and delivered from
opensolaris.org, genunix and others could provide
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heya,
What if it were possible to take some grand unified approach and take
genunix as a host site and then take everything from Blastwave and
then everything from SunFreeware and work together with compromises
being made and perhaps
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 15:56, Glynn Foster wrote:
I think that's a decent suggestion, and I might add a generous compromise
on your part to consider that. It would make things better for the
community at large if there was one common repository.
The question is if parties other than
On 7/13/05, Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 14:28, Dennis Clarke wrote:
What if it were possible to take some grand unified approach and take
genunix as a host site and then take everything from Blastwave and
then everything from SunFreeware and work together
Hey,
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:02 -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 7/13/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'd quite like to see a common repository created under the
opensolaris.org website though if that was possible.
I agree. It would be great if it could be birthed and
On 7/12/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the obvious questions that come to mind that we probably need to
discuss are -
o Why aren't these tools already available on Solaris?
o Why can't we use the non-GNU equivalent? And if not,
why can't we fix those
21 matches
Mail list logo
