Re: [cobalt-developers] Bits flying over fences ...

["pete feeney" <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Do we think the coder's where intentional .....
I know I've place a few comments in code before now.
:)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anders" <andersb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [cobalt-developers] Bits flying over fences ...


> Will DeHaan wrote:
>
> >> Does this mean then that with some careful work we could produce a more
> >> generic install of Cobalt Linux ? Perhaps based upon RedHat, and a
> >> couple of additional rpms and we are on our way?
> >
> > Yes, this is close to my intention for the open source distribution.
> >
> > "Close" because I don't see Cobalt Linux as being the most
cost-effective
> > implementation for the appliancy management code.  It would be great to
> > see this codebase play well with modern Red Hat, Debian and Suse.  That
is
> > a lot to ask for, of course.  Oh, and Solaris x86 too ;-)
>
> What is this "Cobalt Linux" anyway ? Here I thought it was Red Hat Linux,
> with the Cobalt appliance management system software installed upon it ?
> There are some kernel modules and custom hardware (LCD, sensors, etc)
> of course, but otherwise it's mostly Red Hat 6.2 ? (with some 7.2 bits)
> There's a lot of ported patches and such, but are all those needed now ?
>
>
> Like you both say, the "new" codebase would probably do better assuming
> a more *general* underlying Linux ? At least "vanilla" Red Hat 7.3...
> And outside the Sun sphere, doesn't FreeBSD come before Solaris X86 ? :-)
>
> This would make it all closer to Plesk's "PSA" or Ensim's "WEBppliance".
> But I don't think the world needs another "Sun Linux 5.0" distribution ?
> (which BTW didn't even last a year, but that is a whole other discussion)
>
> > Regarding any missing software bits, please be very specific and I'll do
> > what I can to track down the last few threads (puns, ugh) and with luck
> > they'll qualify for public posting.  The intention of this release is to
> > provide ALL source that was not previously available for the Qube3 and
to
> > change its license for public use.
>
> It is missing the source code for the CCE module for php.
> (/usr/lib/apache/php/cce.so)
> The source code for the I18N module for PHP *is* present.
> (/usr/lib/apache/php/i18n.so)
>
> That is, the C code module that defines the PHP functions:
> ccephp_auth
> ccephp_suspend
> ccephp_authkey
> ccephp_bye
> ccephp_connect
> ccephp_suspended
> ccephp_begin
> ccephp_commit
> ccephp_create
> ccephp_destroy
> ccephp_endkey
> ccephp_errors
> ccephp_find
> ccephp_findx
> ccephp_get
> ccephp_names
> ccephp_new
> ccephp_set
> ccephp_whoami
> ccephp_is_rollback
> ccephp_handler_get
> AFAIK, these are rather straightforward links into the clientlib ?
>
>
> Oh, and there is a typo in both the "cce" directories Makefile!
> It says TMPFILE=$$TMPDIR/cce-$(CCE_VERSION)-$(RPMRELEASE).tar.gz,
> but only defines RPM_RELEASE ? i.e. There's an underscore missing.
>
> There's a typo in the (somewhat annoying) boilerplate, too.
> On the name of the current copyright holder itself, no less!
> SUN MIDROSYSTEMS, INC ("SUN")    <--- original spelling
>
> --anders
> BlackSun Inc.
> http://www.blacksun.ca
>
>
> PS.
>   "You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended
>    for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of
>    any nuclear facility." (from the sun_bsd license, for Cobalt Qube OSS)
>
> Now there's some food for thought? The "nuclear power plant appliance" ;-)
>
> And here I thought that web and mail *servers* administered by people
> not knowing any Linux Administration at all was somewhat dangerous...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-developers mailing list
> cobalt-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-developers
>