[9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[EBo]

> Of course, one would then be tempted (as I have been) to look more
> seriously at porting the NetBSD package system to Plan 9.  That's not
> out of the question, in fact it's probably not too difficult, but the
> residual pain of autoconf for each individual package has already
> frightened people with a stronger stomach than mine away.  That is why
> I cannot suggest we catch up, but it may be nice to be ready when
> eventually the autoconf edifice falls down and something mildly
> intelligent takes its place!
>
> Ironically, Plan 9 may be the platform on which a replacement for
> autoconf could be designed and implemented.  But that's too close to a
> pipedream to be given serious consideration.

Take a look at Boost's port of Perforce Software's build tool Jam
<http://www.boost.org/doc/tools/jam/index.html>.  What little I have used it
in the past it came across as a much more elegant tool-chain.  Now what I
would LOVE to see is a port of Joel de Gusman's Spirit++.  Well I can dream
cannt I ;-)

I've also started on updating an old per-application portage ebuild based on
Anant's work back in 2007.  If that is of any interest maybe I could get you
to either collaborate or just do a little testing.

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[erik quanstrom]

> I've also started on updating an old per-application portage ebuild based on
> Anant's work back in 2007.  If that is of any interest maybe I could get you
> to either collaborate or just do a little testing.

p9p is ment to work as a unit.  i think it would
be better if you didn't.

- erik

Re: [9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[EBo]

Sorry for disappearing since last Friday -- emergency house repairs.  Uggg
I feel like I've been beaten by mutant ninja dwarfs armed with...  something
only semi soft.  Uggg.

> here's the full list of dynamic libraries used on
> a random gentoo box i tried:
> ...
> 	libX11.so.6 ...

updated the ebuild.  I did not know about ldd.  Thanks!

I'll send this for a final Gentoo-Sunrise review before submitting
both updated date specific versions and a live mercurial ebuild AFTER
Fridays GSoC deadline.

> > I've also started on updating an old per-application portage ebuild based on
> > Anant's work back in 2007.  If that is of any interest maybe I could get you
> > to either collaborate or just do a little testing.
>
> p9p is ment to work as a unit.  i think it would
> be better if you didn't.

sorry for not being clear.  I am working on ebuilds for plan9port,
glendix, and (cross)compilation of an entire Plan9 system.
Per-application ebuilds are only appropriate for glendix kernel and
compilation of Plan9.  But if people think that it is a red herring
I'll drop the latter.

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1424 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, EBo <ebo@sandien.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Sorry for disappearing since last Friday -- emergency house repairs.  Uggg
> I feel like I've been beaten by mutant ninja dwarfs armed with...
>  something
> only semi soft.  Uggg.
>
> > here's the full list of dynamic libraries used on
> > a random gentoo box i tried:
> > ...
> >       libX11.so.6 ...
>
> updated the ebuild.  I did not know about ldd.  Thanks!
>
> I'll send this for a final Gentoo-Sunrise review before submitting
> both updated date specific versions and a live mercurial ebuild AFTER
> Fridays GSoC deadline.
>
> > > I've also started on updating an old per-application portage ebuild
> based on
> > > Anant's work back in 2007.  If that is of any interest maybe I could
> get you
> > > to either collaborate or just do a little testing.
> >
> > p9p is ment to work as a unit.  i think it would
> > be better if you didn't.
>
> sorry for not being clear.  I am working on ebuilds for plan9port,
> glendix, and (cross)compilation of an entire Plan9 system.
> Per-application ebuilds are only appropriate for glendix kernel and
> compilation of Plan9.  But if people think that it is a red herring
> I'll drop the latter.
>
>
Is there any latest news on Glendix at this point?  Last I'd heard they had
Plan 9's binaries supported at the kernel in at least some basic way.


>  EBo --
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1997 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] build system: [was: (no subject)]

[lucio]

> Take a look at Boost's port of Perforce Software's build tool Jam
> <http://www.boost.org/doc/tools/jam/index.html>.  What little I have used it
> in the past it came across as a much more elegant tool-chain.  Now what I
> would LOVE to see is a port of Joel de Gusman's Spirit++.  Well I can dream
> cannt I ;-)
>
I do believe there are valiant efforts out there, problem is that they
are solutions outside the problem space.  Or, in other words, there
aren't valiant users for them, at least not in significant numbers.

> I've also started on updating an old per-application portage ebuild based on
> Anant's work back in 2007.  If that is of any interest maybe I could get you
> to either collaborate or just do a little testing.

All options are good, if you think I can help in any way, feel free to
mail me off list.

What I guess is the best we can ask for right now is that various
developers keep the finger on the pulse of Open Source fashion and be
ready when the fashion swings willy-nilly to a more practical
portability enhancement toolset than autoconf.  My own bet and
investment is in Go, more with the Plan 9 toolchain port to Unix in
mind than with the language itself, at least until the language
establishes itself.  And before anyone is miffed, I do like the
lanquage, but the port to Plan 9 is proceeding too slowly for my
liking, specially my own efforts.

We know that Plan 9 provides a more stable foundation for portability
across architectures and much of that strength lies in the toolchain,
so I'm putting my money there, even though I think I note a weakness I
can't quite figure out how best to address regarding portability
across OS platforms.

Others will almost certainly pip me to the post regarding
configuration flexibility as presently faked by autoconf.  I'm not
going to go there any time soon, although I am aware of the need: my
plate is full as it is.

++L