Solaris-to-Linux porting guide and Solaris-to-Linux API checker
Frank
compatibility on Linux. The companion article "Solaris-to-Linux
porting guide", introduces the tool and provides a detailed roadmap
for moving your applications to Linux.
Solaris-to-Linux porting guide
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-solar/?t=grnSol2Lnx
Solaris-to-Linux API checker
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/tools/l-solar.html?t=grnSol-APIs
Rich Teer
> This Web application checks the APIs used by a Solaris application for
> compatibility on Linux. The companion article "Solaris-to-Linux
> porting guide", introduces the tool and provides a detailed roadmap
> for moving your applications to Linux.
Not a bad idea, but I've heard that more problems abound
when going from Linux TO Solaris.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
Ingmar Koecher
"Frank" <sol...@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:64ebecf3.0110...@posting.google.com...
dgr...@cs.csuabk.edu
> On 25 Oct 2001, Frank wrote:
>> This Web application checks the APIs used by a Solaris application for
>> compatibility on Linux. The companion article "Solaris-to-Linux
>> porting guide", introduces the tool and provides a detailed roadmap
>> for moving your applications to Linux.
> Not a bad idea, but I've heard that more problems abound
> when going from Linux TO Solaris.
That's usually because too many people do dumb things scattering includes
of <linux/*.h> all over and depending heavily on weird new functions in
glibc.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csubak.edu
Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <ri...@rite-group.com> wrote:
>On 25 Oct 2001, Frank wrote:
>
>> This Web application checks the APIs used by a Solaris application for
>> compatibility on Linux. The companion article "Solaris-to-Linux
>> porting guide", introduces the tool and provides a detailed roadmap
>> for moving your applications to Linux.
>
>Not a bad idea, but I've heard that more problems abound
>when going from Linux TO Solaris.
This is the reason why develop on Solaris and not on Linux.
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schi...@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
Joerg Schilling
The reason for this is simple:
- There is either no man page at all for a specific function on
Linux, or it does not warn you that this function is non-standard.
- People who are new in hacking usually grep for needed defines
inside /usr/include and just include the file that holds the
define.
As the Linux include file structure is kind of strange and none
of the implementation specific include files holds a comment:
/*
* XXX Warning: this file is implementation specific and does
* XXX not exists on a UNIX or other POSIX compliant system.
* XXX Never include this file directly inside a user level
* XXX application!
*/
How should millions of novice programmers learn what to use?
The main problem with the Open Source movement seems to be that
while the number of hackers writing software that is going to be
spread to other people cvia the internet dramatically increased,
the number of knowledgeable hackers did not increase since the mid
80s.
In addition, there is is little help for the novice programmers from
the people who really know what to do. Especially inside FSF there
is a new trend not to work on free software but only to talk
about free software.
Victor Wagner
: #
: # Not a bad idea, but I've heard that more problems abound
: # when going from Linux TO Solaris.
: And if you're going to run Linux,
: just get a cheap PeeCee from Dell. ;-)
And what to do if cheap PeeCee (from Dell, oh no, it is expensive
PeeSee) is unable to cope with your load? First thing to do is
install Solaris on that very PeeCee and put database on raw device.
If this doesn't help, nothing left as to go for some not-so-cheap
sparc. Couple of years ago I'd probably prefer Alphas, but when they
sold to Intel I'd better avoid them.
--
I wouldn't ever write the full sentence myself, but then, I never use
goto either.
-- Larry Wall in <1997090323...@wall.org>
Bob Palowoda
> This Web application checks the APIs used by a Solaris application for
> compatibility on Linux. The companion article "Solaris-to-Linux
> porting guide", introduces the tool and provides a detailed roadmap
> for moving your applications to Linux.
>
>
> Solaris-to-Linux porting guide
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-solar/?t=grnSol2Lnx
>
>
>
Love the part on Linux 64bit:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 64-bit Computing
Red Hat and a number of other distributors provide a 64-bit version of Linux for
the Compaq/DEC Alpha. Additional information about this can be found at the Alp
haLinux Web site. Both 64-bit Solaris and 64-bit Linux/Alpha utilize the LP64 da
ta model resulting in good compatibility.
Soon a 64-bit version of Linux will be available for the Intel Itanium(TM) IA-64
processor. Additional information on this version of Linux can be found at the
IA-64 Linux Project Web site. A version of Linux for the IBM 64-bit PowerPC arch
itecture is also under development.
Note that although the kernel for SuSE Linux/UltraSPARC runs in 64-bit mode, 64-
bit user space applications are currently not supported on SuSE Linux/UltraSPARC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat drops 64bit Linux on Ultra.
Compaq dumps Alpha on Intel, who knows where it's going.
Itanium Linux is still in development
IBM drops 64bit Linux PowerPC for AIX
The third company to port Linux to a UltraSparc 64bit environment has
no user space support.
A warm and fuzzy porting guide.
---Bob
Tor Slettnes
Bob> Red Hat drops 64bit Linux on Ultra. Compaq dumps Alpha on
Bob> Intel, who knows where it's going. Itanium Linux is still in
Bob> development IBM drops 64bit Linux PowerPC for AIX The third
Bob> company to port Linux to a UltraSparc 64bit environment has
Bob> no user space support.
'Course, Debian has ports to both 32-bit Sparc and 64-bit UltraSPARC.
http://www.debian.org/ports/sparc/
-tor
--
Får i ulveklær
Dragan Cvetkovic
Yes, but it doesn't look much different. Here is the quoye from
http://www.debian.org/ports/sparc64/
You can run Debian on the Sun4u (SPARC 64) architectures using the released
stable distribution. Just use the SPARC architecture with the supplied
64-bit Sun4u kernels. You'll be running with a 64-bit kernel, but all
applications will be 32-bit (although you won't notice the
difference). Most of the Debian SPARC distribution was compiled on Sun4u
machines.
[ ... ]
In fact, there is really no point in having all applications running in
64-bit mode. Full 64-bit mode involves a significant overhead (memory and
disk size) with often no benefit. Some applications really can benefit from
being in 64-bit mode, and that is the purpose of this porting effort.
Bye, Dragan
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole
Gerhard Häring
> cyp...@punk.net wrote:
> : #
> : # Not a bad idea, but I've heard that more problems abound
> : # when going from Linux TO Solaris.
>
> : And if you're going to run Linux,
> : just get a cheap PeeCee from Dell. ;-)
>
> And what to do if cheap PeeCee (from Dell, oh no, it is expensive
> PeeSee) is unable to cope with your load? First thing to do is
Solaris on Intel? You're not being serious, are you? This is a
dead-end technology. If Intel, then a *BSD or Linux are the obvious
choices.
Gerhard
--
lilith.hqd-internal FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE #0: Tue Jan 29 17:05:41 CET 2002
gargamel.hqd-internal FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE #0: Fri Feb 15 02:34:17 CET 2002
Außentemperatur in München: 5.2 °C Wind: 3.0 m/s
Dave Uhring
>
> Solaris on Intel? You're not being serious, are you? This is a
> dead-end technology. If Intel, then a *BSD or Linux are the obvious
> choices.
It may or may not be "dead-end" but it will be supported by Sun for the
next 2 years (7 with a contract). And the BSDs and Linux are NOT
viable replacements for Solaris on Intel.