In article <d87n42$fg5$1@newsreader3.netcologne.de>,
Boris Glawe <boris@boris-glawe.de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am going mad with solaris 10!!
>
> Actually I am trying to install the current version of postfix.
>
> Appart from the fact that there are NO precompiled packages for solaris, I can
> hardly find a consistent compiler environment.

Don't know what you mean by that.

> I know that the problem is not solaris, since most people can compile their
> stuff. But I am missing an overview over the solaris tools/structure.
>
> Why the hell are there so man subdirectories with uncomprehensible abbreviations
> in /usr (ccs, adm, kvm, sadm, sfw, snadm, ucb, ..) and other directories? Isn't
> there something like the FSH for Linux?

Yes, SVR4 defines the general structure, and Solaris has
some specific additions of it's own on top.

man filesystems

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Boris Glawe wrote:

> unfortunately not. blastwave's version is almost 2 years old and sunfreeware.com
> provides postfix packages for solaris 8 only. I've searched for packages before

Unlike Linux, Solaris has great backwards compatibiity. The Solaris 8
packages should work just fine on newer releases.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

> Actually I am trying to install the current version of postfix.

I've moved my Linux server to Solaris myself and I can tell you one
thing already. There is a lot of software available for Linux, a lot of
"open source". Anyone can program, yeah right.

Unfortunatly there are not too many people who actually stick to
standards. A lot of people don't bother to comply with them because "if
gcc accepts it its good". So don't be surprised if you discover that a
lot of software won't cleanly compile on Solaris. Some isn't as "posix
compliant" as people claim.

> Appart from the fact that there are NO precompiled packages for
> solaris, I can hardly find a consistent compiler environment.

Come on... gcc is available and you can grab the compiler available
from Sun. In fact; these days gcc is shipped as a standard.

> Why the hell are there so man subdirectories with uncomprehensible
> abbreviations in /usr (ccs, adm, kvm, sadm, sfw, snadm, ucb, ..) and
> other directories? Isn't there something like the FSH for Linux?

Ofcourse there is a hierarchy. And if you spend a little time on it
you'll soon see the way its setup. Just because you don't understand it
does not mean that there is no hierarchy at all. Its different.

> Why are there dozens of versions of the gcc and g++ compilers in
> /usr/sfw/bin,

First of all there aren't dozens of several versions. Second; are you
sure you're not commenting on a wrong window here? This is a common
procedure for Linux, I fail to see why you should want to comment on it
on Solaris.

Its really not Solaris' doing to provide a compiler version B and
immediatly tell its users that they're better of using version A to
compile system binaries like Linux has done numerous of times in the
past.

> And why the hell can I successfully build my code when using
> /usr/sfw/bin/gcc and why will it fail with the /opt/sfw/bin/gcc
> (linking with fails due to file processing error in a .a file), though
> both have the same version (option --version)?

Perhaps the same reason why you would be able to compile your kernel
with gcc-2.95 and not with gcc 3+ on Linux ? Which is still mentioned in
the Linux kernel documentation on several locations ?

If you don't understand Linux I personally don't think you'll fare well
on Solaris.

> Why is there no way to find out, which package a certain file belongs
> to? Why is it not possible to list all files in a certain package? The
> man pages of the pkg* tools didn't help me.

Why is it so hard for people to first read up about a certain OS before
flinging totally irrelevant remarks at it which only display their own
ignorance ?

So the manpages didn't help ?

man pkgchk(1M):

EXAMPLES
Example 1: Using pkgchk for Displaying Package Installation
Information

The following example displays package installation informa-
tion for /usr/bin/ls:

example% pkgchk -l -p /usr/bin/ls


Give me a break.

> Can you give me documentation, which helps me out of this jungle?
> Linux is much easier structured (only one gcc, as, ld, there are only
> to direcotries containing executables: /bin /sbin, the package tools
> are much better usability)

Only one gcc ?

linux:/home/peter $ apt-cache search gcc- | wc -l
34

This is Debian/Sid by the way, one of the most "serious" Linux
distributions available right now.

And even though most people seem to agree that apt is one of the most
powerfull package managers available it will still be totally useless to
people who don't bother to read on how it actually works. Considering
your lack to read the 'pkgchk' manualpage I really don't think its fair
for you to be making comments like this.


Its not a big issue if you ask for help but dissing out the OS like this
and talking about how much easier Linux is while there is in fact no
difference at all is really not making a very good impression IMVHO.

Sure, Solaris is different. But if you are really as familiar with Linux
in the way you claim to be then I doubt that these issues will be a big
problem.

--
Groetjes, Peter

..\\ PGP/GPG key: http://www.catslair.org/pubkey.asc

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:10:19 +0200, Boris Glawe wrote:

>> And if you are referring to rpm as a "package tool" having better
>> usability you really need to get back onto your meds.
>>
> my posting wasn't meant to be the starting point for a flame war.

I suggest that you 'man filesystem' as a starter. Then download and
study this as an introduction:

http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/...olsysadmin.pdf

Next, remember that Solaris is an *enterprise* UNIX. It ain't Linux!

Boris Glawe wrote:
>> Nah, you are just used to it. Remember who did you feel when you started
>> using Linux.
>
> I don't want to contradict - but I still don't understand why this high
> complexity (many bin directories under directories with abbreviated names) is
> necessary.

I found these things intimidating as well when I first started playing
with Solaris, but once you get used to them it really isn't so bad,
and in fact I find it much more logical.

Typical "every day" things are under /usr/bin, certain Solaris Admin
things are under /usr/sadm, some BSD programs with legacy semantics are
under /usr/ucb, and things relating to compilation are under /usr/ccs
(except gcc itself, which is under /usr/sfw, since it is free software).
There is also /usr/xpg?, for certain posix-conforming utilities. Not
to mention /opt..

The result, is that you can customize your PATH to exactly what you
want, without potentially breaking anything, and everyone is happy.

In contrast, just about everything on a Linux system is in /usr/bin
and in your PATH by default. Personally, I enjoy having much of my
userland tucked away under /opt in the event of an upgrade. Though,
with S10 these things seem to increasingly appear in /usr/sfw ;-)

--Eric

Boris Glawe wrote:
>
>
> thanks. What stands "sfw" for? What is the matter with the other
> versions in /opt/sfw and /usr/ccs?
> Are there any resources, where such questions are being answered?
>
>

I guess sfw means sun freeware. Basically, stuff that you got from
sunfreeware.com are installed in /opt/sfw. It's nice to separate things
so you don't unintentionally pollute /usr/bin.

There are no specific rules that state you can't copy stuff from
/opt/sfw to /usr/bin. It's your machine, do whatever you want.

Anonymous

In article <42a7760b$0$38039$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes:
> Yes, SVR4 defines the general structure, and Solaris has
> some specific additions of it's own on top.
>
> man filesystems

Actually, it's man filesystem (singular)

--
Andrew Gabriel

Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:
>
> pkgchk is your friend
>
> pkgchk -v <package name> lists all files in that package
>
> pkgchk -l -p <file name> shows the package name for a file etc etc.
>

Is there a way to check for deps while installing or removing packages?


> Nah, you are just used to it. Remember who did you feel when you started
> using Linux.

Actually the worst aspect of Linux (I mean, Linux administration) is the
package system.
There is no standard, too many packet managers, and new systems see the
light every day (see autopackage, nice, but it is another pm) and the
administrator should always be very careful when installing from a bin
package or directly from sources.
Also the FHS is not followed by all the distros, there is more than a
few differences between one distribuition and another...
Even though I still find it less confusing than the FS structure of
OpenSolaris.

Ciro.

Anonymous wrote:
> Boris Glawe wrote:
>> thanks. What stands "sfw" for? What is the matter with the other
>> versions in /opt/sfw and /usr/ccs?
>> Are there any resources, where such questions are being answered?
>
> I guess sfw means sun freeware. Basically, stuff that you got from
> sunfreeware.com are installed in /opt/sfw. It's nice to separate things
> so you don't unintentionally pollute /usr/bin.

sunfreeware.com uses /usr/local
/opt/sfw is from Sun's freeware companion CD

If the OP tries blastwave.org, add /opt/csw/...

Rich Teer wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Boris Glawe wrote:
>
>
>>unfortunately not. blastwave's version is almost 2 years old and sunfreeware.com
>>provides postfix packages for solaris 8 only. I've searched for packages before
>
>
> Unlike Linux, Solaris has great backwards compatibiity. The Solaris 8
> packages should work just fine on newer releases.

I think the postfix version in sunfreeware.com is even older than
blastwave's. I would compile from source code instead.