From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:26:54 -0700 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1224739614.11627.124.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <1223158526.466.10.camel@ginkgo> <1223351034.19902.17.camel@goose.sun.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9port lacks exportfs server Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25cc6a6c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 10:20 -0700, Russ Cox wrote: > > Hence the question -- would you be in favor > > of continue adding things as needed. And > > if so, what kind of of groundwork would > > you expect from the contributors? > > Usually it is as simple as adding it to your own tree, > adapting the mkfile, and making it build. Absolutely! And for the internal project I'm already doing exactly that for nfsserver. My question had more to do with the usability issues, rather than engineering. It seems that useful bits that didn't get into plan9port right away tend to be scattered throughout "other trees" instead of being available at a canonical location. 9pcon comes readily to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Personally, I've only stumbled on a need to fetch 9pcon so far plus my own changes, but even that can be described as a mild inconvenience. Thus, I was thinking that perhaps if you could lay the ground rules for how new things could be added to your canonical plan9port tree these little annoyances could be dealt with. Thanks, Roman.