From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Andrew Simmons <kodogo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b3bf7751aa6fa799d7c17706cfb371ff@felloff.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:08:29 +1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <052AE7BC-8AD5-4C0D-9E7A-F67F9B02905C@gmail.com>
References: <b3bf7751aa6fa799d7c17706cfb371ff@felloff.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 966c9634-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

What the subject line says.

This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan=E2=80=99s 9pm, =
or the guys who did pf9. I=E2=80=99m just asking because there are still =
chunks of p9p that I=E2=80=99d like to have under Windows. Some of the =
chunks I want (mostly the command line utilities, also sam, not so much =
acme) I=E2=80=99ve managed to build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note =
to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, =
sub-note to self, don=E2=80=99t use syntax highlighting)))

But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be =
dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp =
for another.

So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific =
stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows?

Go in peace
James V Choate XXXVI