From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1f9928315086a72880d03b7a1d748e9c@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:40:00 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <20130410202019.6A6EFB82A@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Go (again) on plan9/arm
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 409f5e36-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Can't go be cross-built? Having multiple cross compilers work
> right is one of the best things about plan9's userland.

Yes, it is possible - to answer your question - although I've found
that having Plan 9 as a special, simpler case is actually a (minor)
liability.

I'm not sure how your question relates to the portion of my message
you quoted, my intention here is two-fold: to locate bugs in the build
procedure and testing on the one hand and to help me identify the
essential changes to the Plan 9 distribution that the Go build needs.

The latter is perhaps interference on my part, but the lack of a code
review facility for Plan 9 means that an outsider has no mechanism to
track a parallel development like the Plan 9 distribution.  It also
means that no one can be sure (with all the different forks of the
Plan 9 base) what is needed for Go to build on a given one.

It's not my job either to attempt to dictate to Plan 9 developers
anywhere what they need to have in their distributions, nor to grant
Bell Labs higher authority than any of the subsequent forks as the
discriminator.  But given that, in my opinion, Go is for Plan 9 is
likely to reach an insurmountable obstacle, this is how I have
approached the problem.  Other suggestions are welcome.

++L