On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:16:53PM -0600, Wes Felter wrote:
> T10 UNMAP/thin provisioning support in zvols
That's probably simple enough, and sufficiently valuable too.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:35:40PM +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> 7) vdev evacuation as an upgrade path (which may depend or take
> advantage of zfs resize/shrink code)
IIRC Matt Ahrens has said on this list that vdev evacuation/pool
shrinking is being worked. So (7) would be duplication of ef
> > If the Solaris commands become a superset of the Gnu ones, then that
> > position becomes a fait accompli.
>
> Thus avoiding the entire question of whether or not that's the best -
> or even a desirable - goal.
Not quite -- there are conflicts between the commands themselves. For
example, GN
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:21:17PM -0800, Brock Pytlik wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Can't it be in entire?
> >
> It is in entire, but that doesn't mean it's part of the default
> installation. I believe it was removed from the default install beca
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:16:45PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
> >> Software has to be select
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 03:26:20PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> tcsh is not a core Solaris package and media is not of an infinite size.
> Software has to be selected to fit on the core media based on certain
> goals. Everyone has their own favourite software that probably isn't
> installed b
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:14:01PM -0500, Dave Miner wrote:
> >> My opinion is that the GNU utilities should be modified, with
> >> modifications fed back upstream ...
> >
> > Sometimes that doesn't work. GRUB is a good example.
> >
>
> I don't know whether GRUB is a good example, as I'm not up
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:52:33PM -0600, Brian Smith wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > The Indiana team evidently want GNU utils be preferred, and evidently
> > would like to see the compatibility issues with Solaris utils fixed.
> >
> > I see no problem with that
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:28 -0800, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > * Brian Utterback (brian.utterb...@sun.com) wrote:
> > > It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one or a
> > > GNU one? If you want both, you have
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:37:09AM +0100, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> This thread seems to have become unproductive.. Can one of the /leaders/
> (if there are any around) please bring this back on track, move this in
> private or end it.
I agree. A religious war about GNU vs. Solaris isn't going to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:05:42PM -0500, Brian Utterback wrote:
> It is simple. Do we want the default environment to be a Solaris one
> or a GNU one? If you want both, you have to provide a knob to switch
> them back and forth.
I agree, but that knob should be made to work via shell startup s
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:31:03PM +0100, I. Szczesniak wrote:
> I believe it is a mistake to concentrate on the GNU coreutils tools.
> Opensolaris would alienate users from OSX and BSD platforms with an
> API which roughly changes every six months. It'd be better if
> Opensolaris starts its own So
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:36:05PM +0100, Jan Friedel wrote:
> RBAC related:
> Since I'm using the /usr/xpg4/bin path as the primary one, I was
> little bit confused, that, event thought I have the "Object
> Access Management" profile applied on my account, I'm not able
>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:51:26AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> The known bad interactions with GNU utilities in the default path have been
> tracked so far at:
> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/showdependencytree.cgi?id=576&hide_resolved=0
Thanks. It looks like ls(1) and chmod(1) vis-a-vis
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:15:33AM +0100, casper@sun.com wrote:
>
> >hello all,
> >i'm surprised that gnu chmod is installed, what are the advantages
> >comparing to solaris chmod?
> >It's very annoying when using ACLs.
>
> No reason; several of the GNU utilities are broken in some way in So
[HTML e-mail on OpenSolaris discuss lists? Ugh. It doesn't display
right in the archives, btw:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2008-December/044500.html
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/attachments/20081218/e2e8cb3a/attachment.html
]
On Thu, De
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:42:37PM +0200, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nicolas Williams
> wrote:
>
> > I was mystified too. I think SRP is too confusable. I recommend a
> > different acronym. What's wrong with "iSER" as a projec
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:15:35PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Dan Maslowski wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >We have posted preliminary binaries and documents to the
> >http://opensolaris.org/os/project/srp web page. We are in the process of
> >stepping though the code and compiling for sparc etc W
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:13:46PM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
> That's an odd comment, considering most reviews of FF3 I've seen
> commends it for being both faster and leaking less memory tan its
> predecessor.
See:
6755391 sqlite3 should not be built with SQLITE_DEBUG; uses access(2) too
often,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:10:49PM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >OK then the prescription is:
> >
> > - setup a Unix nameservice for the Solaris and Linux systems
I should point out here too that your NFSv3 clients don't strictly need
a Unix
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 06:40:05PM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> >So, what are you trying to do?
> >
> I need to setup a new farm of software build servers. They'll consist of
> all different versions of Linux (multiple versions of RHEL, and SLES)
> and a few S10 for building our software.
> I
BTW, for more information on how to use AD SFU as a Unix LDAP
nameservice see:
http://blogs.sun.com/baban/entry/solaris_10_and_active_directory
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:39:52PM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> Is SFU required to use only NFSv3 between Solaris Machines?
No. A Unix name service is strongly implied. That could be SFU.
> >No interop with Linux with NFSv3. Try using CIFS.
> >
> But Linux SMB mounts are done as a single Us
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:37:16AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 06:53:08AM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> > >> as a Domain Controller?
> > >
> > >No.
> > >
> > That's OK. B
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 06:53:08AM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> >> as a Domain Controller?
> >
> >No.
> >
> That's OK. But (liking Solaris as much as I do,) it seems a shame to
> leave Windows as the only system that can be the authoritative source
>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:43:46PM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> The part I'm fuzzy on are the nameservies interoperation. I know the
> CIFS server required a bunch of work to deal with windows user and
> groups for file ownership and access control. What is new in Solaris
> though for shareing
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 01:10:15PM +0200, Nico Sabbi wrote:
> I'd like to point out this stupidity in the localization of scp/ssh,
> that can have *VERY* dangerous consequences (like being
> locked out of your server).
>
> At the first connection ssh asks you if you want to continue the
> connecti
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It obviously doesn't work then because freshmeat.net lists both star and
> > ImageMagic.
>
> I see no relation between imagemagic and star. What is your problem?
Darren is saying
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:43:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It most definitely does depend on you since noone is getting paid to do
> > it and noone is volunteering to do it either, which leaves you as the
> > part
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
> > integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
> > something else... :/
>
> This does not depend on me as I am ready and waiting sice quite
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
> > neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
> > before yours and now you're not happy; c'est la vie). ecmp, fcmp, ...
> > four le
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
> > gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
> > source form cmp(1) ? As some other
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris,
> OpenSolaris cannot evolve.
You've jumped the shark.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@
Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than
they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever)
name is a conflict with another existing one.
I recommend that Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making
such a proposal specific to his trouble
I'd set Reply-To so your replies, if any, would go to opensolaris-discuss,
not psarc-ext. One more try. Again, don't reply to me directly please.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why a
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:55:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name
> > > appeared
> > > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an importa
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 07:23:35AM -0800, Gary Winiger wrote:
> Secondly, Craig has hired someone to work on SMC. Once he gets
> up to speed, one of the tasks I've got planned for him is
> a general key=value extension so SMC will not continue to block
> work that needs to
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:34:29AM -0700, David Bustos wrote:
> Quoth Nicolas Droux on Wed, May 16, 2007 at 11:00:30PM -0600:
> > On behalf of the Networking Community I'd like to propose the
> > creation of a new OpenSolaris project: Virtual Network Machines.
> >
> > The project will exploit Op
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:13:05AM -0700, Gary Winiger wrote:
> > They don't duplicate the info in the syslog files though?
>
> Just to this point. Solaris Audit records a local binary
> file (possibly remote via NFS).
> In parallel it will write some subset of that file
>
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> > Oh! Well then... But those deal in structured data also...
>
> It's a bit different in that you have to specify enterpriseId in order
> to get to a parsed message content, as opposed to just meta
> information. The rest seems (a
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Nicolas Williams writes:
> > > Failing to produce those sorts of schema leaves you with just a
> > > handful of code numbers plus free-form text wrapped prettily in XML.
> >
> > Each message could
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:58:27PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> It depends on whether there is in fact a solid problem out there that
> this solves. I'm unconvinced on that. Giving message integrity to
> syslog seems a bit wobbly to me, but I guess I can see why someone
> might want that. Provi
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:35:13PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Nicolas Williams writes:
> > Are you speaking of the protocol?
>
> Both of the files and the applications that use syslog. The protocol
> itself is well enough defined.
>
> > The IETF SYSLOG WG is chart
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:09:27PM +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> Also I'd like suggest augmenting the API with an improved variant
> of openlog() (openlog_r() ?) that fixes current issues relating to thread
> safety and dlopen risks.
+100
___
opensolaris-
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:58:09PM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
> If there is any evolution of the log file format, it will
> be to use XML. [...]
Sure, but the schema will have to be influenced by what the IETF SYSLOG
WG ends up doing w.r.t. structured messages.
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:33PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Instead, syslog is a great dumping ground for all sorts of debug and
> human-only messages, and will likely be treated that way indefinitely.
> I would oppose an effort to apply structure on top of something that
> is inherently witho
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:19:16AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The requirement is not that inodes and data are separate; the requirement
> is a specific upperbound to disk transactions. The question therefor
> is not "when will ZFS be able to separate inods and data"; the question
> is when
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:28:42PM -0700, Derek Cicero wrote:
> >E.g., a post from Eric Schrock from May 5, 2006, with message ID
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> OK, based on this message ID, it did not come twice to the same list. It
> came once to the zfs list on 5/5 and was cross posted to the nfs
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:13:37PM -0700, Derek Cicero wrote:
> Yes, the future goal is to allow all registered users to post to all
> lists, however this requires us to re-write parts of mailman. The folks
> working on the SCM app right now should be able to turn their attention
> to the mailm
Also, I'm getting tired of replying to some e-mail only to get a "post
awaits moderator approval" reply.
I understand why we do that for non-subscribers.
And I guess we wouldn't want to by default treat @sun.com posters as
permitted to post w/o moderation.
But it's bloody obnoxious. I don't wan
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:29:53AM -0700, Derek Cicero wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
> >The ZFS discuss list is re-delivering old messages.
>
> Which message(s) was redelivered?
E.g., a post from Eric Schrock from May 5, 2006, with message ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTE
The ZFS discuss list is re-delivering old messages.
Have the problems with the archives been fixed?
Nico
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:30:29PM +0800, Wuming Shi wrote:
> hi,
> how can I disable the root from "su - " to become ? currently
> the root can su to without password, so it's not safe to this
> user.
This thread is not showing up on the OpenSolaris discuss archive...
The mailman archives has i
> I perceive that the OpenSolaris project is about
> opening the source
> to Solaris.
> The problem is that Solaris is a product.
> That product wants to now include Apache, MySQL,
> PostgreSQL and
> a number of other things. These did not all exist
> in Solaris 8
> and certainly SeaMonkey,
e selected according to user's
user_attr(4) entries, with defaults provided by profiles listed in
policy.conf(4).
The initial leaders of this project would be:
55 matches
Mail list logo
