[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>Have you considered seperating in packages and give the freedom to build
> >>what ever you want (kernel, libc, base utils) like GNU tools? By following
> >>this method, you give more freedom to external distribution.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is the wrong way to go.
>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As monolithic as it may be, when you're building an entire
> platform, something of that nature is required to deliver
> it all. While it may be an unfamiliar task to Linux folks,
> it isn't to those from the BSD world.
>
> Simi
>*BSD have flag days for similar reasons to Solaris -
>when you change (for example) the major number of libc,
>chances are things will care about this.
We do not have such flag days in Solaris.
We only have build environment flag days because ON is not
self-contained.
The flag days are typical
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
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we
need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is
really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that
'nig
Francois Saint-Jacques wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
If I want to build just a specific kernel module, I cd to
usr/src/uts/intel/ip (for example, to build just ip) and
type "make all" in that directory.
Similarly I can do a "make" in vario
James Carlson wrote:
Moinak Ghosh writes:
The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow
one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features
kernel.
Currently all kernel components are built.
Ugh. Please, let's not go the way of the sort o
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:08:16AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we
> > need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is
> > really monolithic an
Moinak Ghosh writes:
> The thing that is missing is a make menuconfig like stuff that can allow
> one to build a reduced set of kernel components or a reduced features
> kernel.
> Currently all kernel components are built.
Ugh. Please, let's not go the way of the sort of #ifdef madness that
trag
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 have been thinking
that the best option would be to include templates i
Francois Saint-Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beforing getting in the package management/installation stuff, I think we
> need to solve a big problem here: ON build. The current build process is
> really monolithic and unfriendly for new commers. What is all that
> 'nightly' and 'bldenv' stu
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 have been thinking
that the best option would be to include templates in
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 have been thinking
> that the best option would be to include templates in the installation
> procedure
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at
>> the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are
>> criticising *before* criticising it.
>
> I mean something like this: http://www.
ken mays writes:
> Oh, not bad as this is done by Debian installs. Yet,
> think of the users that don't connect certain
> workstations to the network or have high network
> bandwidth.
Of course, this is also already part of the stated goals of the Caiman
project ...
--
James Carlson, Solaris Net
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ has had links to all of them for
a while.
It still does.
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
Have you actually looked?
ops, i did look, however, i missed the quick downloads table... stupid me
but from
http://www.theregister.com/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/
i can see people are still confused (and complaining).
I don't know what the current d
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
>> What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ?
>>
> yes, something like that but more visible and in the front page
> (you now need to go to downloads, and scroll down)
Have you actually l
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 have been thinking that the
best option would be to include templates in the
installation procedure that could pull down different
packages sets depending on what kind
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
On 6/5/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference
> distribution which you can rebuild yourself.
I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving
Brian Gupta wrote:
It might help if some of the people who are criticising what we have at
the moment had actually bothered to look at the thing they are
criticising *before* criticising it.
I mean something like this: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
Please don't hold the Mozilla site
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Gupta wrote:
> As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage,
I
> would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash
page
> that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get
OpenS
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ?
yes, something like that but more visible and in the front page
(you now need to go to downloads, and scroll down)
Have you actually looked?
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
Brian Gupta wrote:
As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage, I
would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash page
that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get OpenSolaris
would feature the ref build, but also provide links
On 6/5/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
> would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at
> osol.org?
> that would at least solve ONE problem easily
What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ?
yes, somet
On 6/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 have been
thinking
>that the best option would be to include templates in the installation
>procedure tha
Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
would it be possible to have links to the rest of the distributions at
osol.org?
that would at least solve ONE problem easily
What, you mean something like http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/ ?
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
As I understand there are links on the homepage?? Speaking of homepage, I
would suggest that once we have a working distro that we have a splash page
that says "Get OpenSolaris" and "Develop OpenSolaris". The get OpenSolaris
would feature the ref build, but also provide links and descriptions of t
On 6/5/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference
> distribution which you can rebuild yourself.
I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving
the "I can't find downloads at
The thought is that things that are part of the OpenSolaris code base would
definately be hosts by OpenSolaris.org. Being that all the code hosted by
OpenSolaris is freely distributable, it would obviously make sense to
develop and leverage mirror sites.
One thing that will also be hosted is repo
Brian Gupta writes:
> 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 have been thinking
> that the best option would be to include templates in the installation
> procedure that could pull down different packages
>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 have been thinking
>that the best option would be to include templates in the installation
>procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I still stand by my suggestion that we need to have a nice reference
> distribution which you can rebuild yourself.
I completely agree. The part that's unclear to me is whether solving
the "I can't find downloads at opensolaris.org" is any part of that
problem.
--
Ja
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 have been thinking
that the best option would be to include templates in the installation
procedure that could pull down different packages sets depending on what
kind
>Robert Lunnon writes:
>> The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this
>> as closely as possible without adding extra features that could
>> inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro.
>
>That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs dire
2007/6/5, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Robert Lunnon writes:
> The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this
> as closely as possible without adding extra features that could
> inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro.
That's possibl
Robert Lunnon writes:
> The Reference Platform would then be defined as one that emulates this
> as closely as possible without adding extra features that could
> inadvertently differentiate the reference plaqtform from a given distro.
That's possibly doable, but I think it also runs directly in
Robert Lunnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect this debate boils down to "What is the base level of
> compatibility that the openSolaris 'Brand' should denote such that
> Applications are portable between the various implementations. I think
> this boils down to:
>
> A. Define a "Reser
James Carlson wrote:
John Mark Walker writes:
Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following
is my best attempt at an answer:
James Carlson wrote:
It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
that focus on different needs and different
The OpenSolaris reference binary can be what everybody
says is needed.
People gripe about the desktop, they want KDE and
XFCE. Why couldn't
these be part of the distribution? The only catch is
any binary added
should be from an OpenSolaris project or source. It
would be great to
get Blastwa
Brian Gupta wrote:
This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not
OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris
8 does
not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which
combines the current work done in Blastwav
Brian Gupta wrote:
This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not
OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris
8 does
not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which
combines the current work done in Blastwav
This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not
OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does
not have. What is needed is a Blastwave II (OpenSolaris Edition) which
combines the current work done in Blastwave and the build
scripts/patches SFE and
Paul Gress wrote:
It would be great to get Blastwave as an OpenSolaris Project so all
the dependencies would be consolidated.
This would be great, except that blastwave is built for Solaris 8, not
OpenSolaris. It probably not best to be dependent on what Solaris 8 does
not have. What is ne
Alan Burlison wrote:
Steve Lau has explained this very clearly, perhaps there should be a
link to his diagram on the download page...
http://whacked.net/2007/02/13/opensolarissolaris-relationships/
The way I see it, is all the distributions have their own theme.
SXCE -> SXDE -> S11 is Sun
John Mark Walker wrote:
Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for
OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the
latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been
published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release is unsupported.
D
2007/6/1, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> --
> Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for
> OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the
> latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been
> publ
Alan Burlison wrote:
>
> --
> Solaris Express, Community Edition is Sun's binary release for
> OpenSolaris developers (code named "Nevada"). It is built from the
> latest OpenSolaris source and additional technology that has not been
> published in the OpenSolaris source base. This release
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/sun_project_indiana/comments/#c_17095
>
> -ian
+1, exactly why OpenSolaris is not running on any of my machine.
--
Francois Saint-Jacques
http://www.networkdump.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensol
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Paul Jakma wrote:
FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility.
Indeed, it's not desirable - it would might things like an OpenSolaris
Gack: s/might/preclude/
distro targetted at small-footprint devices, or Nexenta.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma,
Solaris Networking
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
I think that the idea is clear, fixing the usability problems of
OpenSolaris
by creating a new binary distro within the opensolaris.org community, as a
community effort.
No it *isn't* clear - what do you mean by "usability problems"? That's
a phrase which is so general a
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Given how negative this community is on Linux and how positive it is
on compatibility, I'm floored this is even an issue. This is not the
feature of Linux you want to be emulating!
FWIW, I don't think we can stop incompatibility.
Indeed, it's not desira
2007/6/1, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ian Murdock wrote:
> People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note
that
> that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything,
it
> has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros
*can*
> c
Ian Murdock wrote:
People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that
that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it
has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can*
continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to in
On 5/31/07, John Mark Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The other OpenSolaris-based distros are already using different
toolkits from SE. Can you say "incompatibility"? If not now, then
certainly in the future. This is not a path you want to go down.
*Amen*.
Given how negative this community is
People are getting too hung up over the "reference" aspect--and note that
that word wasn't even mentioned in the original proposal. If anything, it
has come up in the context of assuring people that multiple distros *can*
continue to exist even with OpenSolaris expanding to incorporate a distro,
a
> There are many (good) reasons for the confusion:
>
> * OpenSolaris is not even 2 yet.
Jim, thank you for laying out the "big picture" with some history also.
Often times the techies get caught up in the blades of grass and totally
miss the fact that we cleared the field of rocks and stumps, pl
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
Fo
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
1. We need a better answer to the question, "What is OpenSolaris?" Ideally,
it's something tangible, i.e., something people can download and install.
The current "OpenSolaris is just the source code, like kernel.org, and Sun
and others take that code and m
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm
surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a
reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I
know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean up the mess,
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Ian Murdock wrote:
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know,
I've
spent the better part of the
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *th
John Mark Walker writes:
> Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following
> is my best attempt at an answer:
>
> James Carlson wrote:
> > It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
> > that focus on different needs and different areas.
> >
>
Very good points. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Following
is my best attempt at an answer:
James Carlson wrote:
> It effectively shuts down the possibility of alternate distributions
> that focus on different needs and different areas.
>
This is where we fundamentally disagree.
John Mark Walker writes:
> I'm not trying to be flip here, but the problem and solution seems
> rather simple to me. I see a lot of good that can come from having a
> reference distro, and a lot of bad that can come from not having one.
> I'm curious - what about a reference distribution do you not
John Plocher wrote:
What special status should a reference distribution actually have ?
What is the implication to other distros if they do things differently
to other distros ?
None and None.
The it isn't a reference distribution but just another distro.
The word I have issue with is "refe
I know that Ian, in his capacity as LSB leader, has many opinions here,
but I'd like to chime in with my own.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> But what is the purpose of such a reference ? To tell other people
> they are doing it wrong ? To be the supported platform people point
> to when an ISV starts
Ian Murdock wrote:
2. With all the negative opinions about Linux around here, I'm surprised
to have to say this, but: Multiple distributions without a reference for
compatibility is *not* a feature of Linux we want to emulate! I know, I've
spent the better part of the last 5 years trying to clean
Darren J Moffat wrote:
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a significant status. Exactly why do we even need that status ?
Because many people have asked for something like it and some other
group has decided to go scratch that itch. Do you really need
Ian Murdock wrote:
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to
solve.
F
> On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
>> binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
>> the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
>>
>
> Two rea
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *th
Before we go too far down the track of creating a "so called" reference
binary distribution of OpenSolaris I think we need to first clearly for
the whole community document exactly what problem we are trying to solve.
For something to be *the* reference distribution for OpenSolaris is
quite a
73 matches
Mail list logo
