* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-11-02 20:11]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting! Why then does Sun remove them from the code?
Remove how? It's not in the public sfw gate?
You seem to have strange ideas from a complete source that
allows a compilation.
In general, the
Ceri Davies wrote:
The compiler isn't a big issue for me, but the contents of closed/ and
SUNWonbld definitely are; for one our codebase is somewhat of a lame
horse without them and for two it's a PITA to have to check for new
versions before building anything.
3) If so, how do I help or
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:28:52AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
3) If so, how do I help or get this started? [I obviously
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:52:15AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:28:52AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:28:52AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 07:46:41AM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
The compiler isn't a big issue for me, but the contents of closed/ and
SUNWonbld definitely are; for one our codebase is somewhat of a lame
horse without them and for two it's a PITA to have to check for new
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:29:36PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.
I
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.
I find it somewhat uncomfortable that OpenSolaris (or rather, ON) is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The compiler isn't a big issue for me, but the contents of closed/ and
SUNWonbld definitely are; for one our codebase is somewhat of a lame
horse without them and for two it's a PITA to have to check for new
versions before building anything.
I'm not sure why
On 02/11/2007, Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.
I find it somewhat uncomfortable that OpenSolaris (or rather,
The compiler isn't a big issue for me, but the contents of closed/ and
SUNWonbld definitely are; for one our codebase is somewhat of a lame
horse without them and for two it's a PITA to have to check for new
versions before building anything.
I'm not sure why SUNWonbld is different than the
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.
I find it somewhat uncomfortable that OpenSolaris (or rather, ON) is not
self-hosting.
The compiler isn't a big issue
On 2-Nov-07, at 6:31 AM, Ceri Davies wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Not true: OpenSolaris is not even a complete basic OS.
This has been a nagging concern for me for some time.
I find it somewhat uncomfortable that OpenSolaris (or rather, ON) is
Interesting! Why then does Sun remove them from the code?
Remove how? It's not in the public sfw gate?
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did already send this list many times, let me send it again. This is
missing:
Not to me :)
Then you appeared recently on this mailing list.
usr/include/libxslt
usr/include/libxslt/attributes.h
usr/include/libxslt/documents.h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting! Why then does Sun remove them from the code?
Remove how? It's not in the public sfw gate?
You seem to have strange ideas from a complete source that
allows a compilation.
Please Joerg, don't speak in riddles.
I'm assuming that libxslt is what
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 05:59:30PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ceri Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did already send this list many times, let me send it again. This is
missing:
Not to me :)
Then you appeared recently on this mailing list.
I've been here a while, but I don't
17 matches
Mail list logo
