[9fans] xz compression?

[9fans] xz compression?

[Steve Simon]

Anyone ported the xz compressor/decompressor which
is gaining traction these days?

-Steve

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[lucio]

> Anyone ported the xz compressor/decompressor which
> is gaining traction these days?

Have you checked the Go packages?  Something tells me you may find a
portable version there.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[Jens Staal]

On Tuesday 13 January 2015 11:56:57 Steve Simon wrote:
> Anyone ported the xz compressor/decompressor which
> is gaining traction these days?
>
> -Steve

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/contrib/staal1978/pkg/xz-5.0.4b.tbz

I have not done much testing of it however...
Would be cool to hear if it works for you.

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[Jens Staal]

On Tuesday 13 January 2015 14:13:37 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > Anyone ported the xz compressor/decompressor which
> > is gaining traction these days?
>
> Have you checked the Go packages?  Something tells me you may find a
> portable version there.
>
> Lucio.

found this... looks interesting but not ready yet according to the description
https://github.com/uli-go/xz

the most recent suggestion of "using xz from go" was basically to call the xz
binary from the go code:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19555373/read-xz-files-in-go

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[lucio]

> the most recent suggestion of "using xz from go" was basically to call the xz
> binary from the go code:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19555373/read-xz-files-in-go

Even though at the back of my mind there is a nagging desire to
implement gccgo in a Plan 9 fashion (for OpenLDAP, if anyone cares), I
think the bccgo approach, useful as it is, should be limited to
obsolete software.  But that's philosophy, rather than pragmatism.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[lucio]

> think the bccgo approach, useful as it is, should be limited to

gccgo, not bccge, Apologies.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[Jens Staal]

On Wednesday 14 January 2015 08:08:23 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> Even though at the back of my mind there is a nagging desire to
> implement gccgo in a Plan 9 fashion (for OpenLDAP, if anyone cares), I
> think the bccgo approach, useful as it is, should be limited to
> obsolete software.  But that's philosophy, rather than pragmatism.

There is a new-ish GCC port (4.8.3) to Plan9 made by Alvaro
http://marcus.biz.tm/jail/comment?threadid=62&title=GNU+port+for+Plan9+upgraded
http://marcus.biz.tm/jail/comment?threadid=64&title=GCC+4.8.3+and+Lighttpd+in+Plan9

I mirrored one older (gcc 4.5) version at
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/contrib/staal1978/gcc/

Basically it is the APE libs built with GCC. It should apparently support many
languages (it does not mention which ones). It might be possible to use to
rebuild GCC that supports go (if it is not included by default). The new
version uses another directory structure, but similar to regular APE it
basically is a sepparate environment from the typical Plan9 (probably to treat
more like linuxemu rather than as APE since GCC-compiled libraries can not be
mixed with the native system libraries).

I have personally looked at kerberos/heimdall + ldap before... do not remember
for what and then I tried building in "vanilla" APE (I think it was for
quagga). I have also had thoughts about a Tor client (needs libevent) and/or
one of the distributed DNS things. Right now no time to play however :(

Now that I saw this updated 4.8 port of GCC I am  eager to play around with it
again some time...

Re: [9fans] xz compression?

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 187 bytes --]

Have you considered MiniLZO [1]?
I think it *can* do the format, and it should be much easier to
port than xz(1) itself.

  [1] http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/

--steffen

[-- Attachment #2: Original message content --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 6212 bytes --]

From: Jens Staal <staal1978@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] xz compression?
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:03:05 +0100
Message-ID: <59219214.SB6uzH8Fvv@krypton>

On Wednesday 14 January 2015 08:08:23 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> Even though at the back of my mind there is a nagging desire to
> implement gccgo in a Plan 9 fashion (for OpenLDAP, if anyone cares), I
> think the bccgo approach, useful as it is, should be limited to
> obsolete software.  But that's philosophy, rather than pragmatism.

There is a new-ish GCC port (4.8.3) to Plan9 made by Alvaro
http://marcus.biz.tm/jail/comment?threadid=62&title=GNU+port+for+Plan9+upgraded
http://marcus.biz.tm/jail/comment?threadid=64&title=GCC+4.8.3+and+Lighttpd+in+Plan9

I mirrored one older (gcc 4.5) version at
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/contrib/staal1978/gcc/

Basically it is the APE libs built with GCC. It should apparently support many
languages (it does not mention which ones). It might be possible to use to
rebuild GCC that supports go (if it is not included by default). The new
version uses another directory structure, but similar to regular APE it
basically is a sepparate environment from the typical Plan9 (probably to treat
more like linuxemu rather than as APE since GCC-compiled libraries can not be
mixed with the native system libraries).

I have personally looked at kerberos/heimdall + ldap before... do not remember
for what and then I tried building in "vanilla" APE (I think it was for
quagga). I have also had thoughts about a Tor client (needs libevent) and/or
one of the distributed DNS things. Right now no time to play however :(

Now that I saw this updated 4.8 port of GCC I am  eager to play around with it
again some time...