08:42:42 Can somebody point me to the priviledge which a smf service needs to bind to ports below 1024 as a normal user? 10:22:34 It's net_privaddr (and root needs it too) - there's an example at https://github.com/omniosorg/omnios-extra/blob/master/build/isc-bind9/files/named-template.xml#L61 11:26:39 Thanks worked 14:45:54 i'm probably going to say it poorly, but do contracts 'nest' at all? e.g. there's a situation where a child process needs to die if it's parent dies for any reason.. AFAIK you'd need a contract to do that 14:47:10 but if the parent is already running under a contract, might that be a problem (if that one isn't configured to react differently to a process in the contract exiting) 14:48:01 (this is a library -- not mine -- where a call forks a child process, and since it can't control the parent, on Linux and FreeBSD it uses prctl() or the like to set the child to exit if the parent does) 17:13:28 jbk: can you change the library and child any? can the child be multithreaded? (open a pipe in the parent, pass the read end to the child, and create a thread in the child that blocks on a read on the pipe and exits the process when it gets EOF) 17:16:16 but process(5) does mention some notion of contract inheritance around CT_PR_REGENT ("If set, the process contract can inherit unabandoned contracts 17:16:16 left by exiting member processes.") 18:32:54 [illumos-gate] 17351 libc: ignoring unreachable code -- Toomas Soome 18:37:47 toasterson: https://illumos.org/man/7/privileges is your friend when trying to figure out what privileges you need for something like that 18:44:08 (I also spent some time a few years ago going through other man pages in Solaris to spell out which privileges were needed on the man page for the system calls/programs/etc, but I don't think anyone has done that for illumos man pages) 18:52:14 can't believe you've caused me to be online on this shittiest of all days. 18:52:37 the reason file(1) needs /usr/has is that that is how mediators work 18:53:10 the reason for mediating it is when we tried to replace it _before_ everyone complained about _that_ because the text changes and blah blah blah 18:53:41 so at the moment, the "community" viewpoint has reached "You must neither ship the old file, nor the new file" 18:53:47 fools days indeed 18:55:56 .oO "I most certainly do welcome the new and improved version" 19:03:36 I do too. My point was that the mediator is a compromise based on last time (I haven't actually spoken to pmooney, maybe it's a compromise based on general empathy, rather than remembering when jeffpc tried this) 19:04:50 and that "we shouldn't use usr/has, just delete things" is a point of view that needs to be tempered by the experience of ever having tried to delete anything 19:08:33 Mediating what's in gate and allowing distributions to replace it if they choose seems very sensible. I wouldn't want to see it deleted, or a different implementation imported into gate, even if the licence allowed it. 19:18:49 I just don't like us making idiots of ourselves by sort of settling on impossible positions, because what happens -- from direct experience -- is you just burn out on trying to fix things like that 19:19:06 which is why we still have uucp support, and rpc.wtfisthatd 19:19:22 and file(1) from when jeffpc did it, and several other things probably 19:22:57 sc 20:02:23 Like I said in at least one other place, I would like to see ours improved, but I also don't have time to do it myself right now. Mediation seems like a pragmatic win. 20:03:02 I am generally in favour of the "It's your computer!" school of thought :P 20:03:07 is the developer-essential metapackage just an Illumos thing or does it also exist on Solaris? 20:03:14 No idea! 20:03:34 I think it's actually "build-essential", isn't it? And that name was picked to match common Linux distributions 20:04:01 yes, you're right 20:04:34 http://pkg.oracle.com doesn't show it 20:07:40 I thought they had a package like that, though. alanc would know what it is 20:09:50 Solaris world has duality, they did create this community version (whatever the actual name is), which is supposed to support developers to build third party packages 20:11:25 CBE? haven't tried it 20:13:19 yep. ofc there is some gameplay about rights to use and such 20:22:08 I would be inclined to avoid even downloading it unless you have someone who feels confident interpeting the licence terms 20:24:42 I'll ask alanc next time I seem him on irc 20:46:29 oh sure, use my name in vain while I'm out for lunch 20:47:11 "developer-gnu" is our roughly equivalent package: http://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/release/manifest/0/group%2Ffeature%2Fdeveloper-gnu⊙14%2C11.4-11.4.42.0.0.111.0%3A20211203T200423Z 20:48:50 though I see https://pkg.openindiana.org/hipster/manifest/0/metapackages%2Fbuild-essential@19%2C5.11-2025.0.0.0%3A20250105T135527Z has a lot more in 21:36:20 we renamed /usr/has/bin to /usr/sunos/bin before 11.0 shipped to avoid the "tired joke" portion of the arguments 21:36:53 since no one really belived sch's claim that "has" obviously stood for "Historical Application Support" 22:40:47 alanc: Yeah, that seems frankly a wise decision