Re: [9fans] Modularizing plan9port

[Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>]

By the way, silly question, but what would it take to have the kencc
port accepted as part of p9p?

And a port of of plan9's awk (trivial to do)? It would be nice to be
able to rely on a decent utf-8 enabled awk when writing scripts for
p9p without worrying about what broken awk does this or that *nix have
installed.

uriel

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to cross-compile why don't you use Plan 9? or at least the
> port of the plan9 compilers to lunix[1], where cross compiling is the
> only way to compile.
>
> Cross-compiling in Gnu/land is a nightmare not worth going into.
>
> uriel
>
> [1] http://gsoc.cat-v.org/projects/kencc/
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
>> * Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Ask yourself whether you're doing this because it would
>>> actually make your life easier or because of some
>>
>> It *does* make my life easier!
>>
>> I'm not just using it for personal stuff, but for lots of highly
>> customized production systems, where careful maintenance is
>> very important.
>>
>> Disk space is not the issue, but the amount of code to be
>> maintained (source and binary). So the target systems *always*
>> should only contain exactly what's needed - nothing more.
>>
>>> pre-conceived notion that software packaging should be complex.
>>
>> Actually, I want to make it simpler. You probably can't see this
>> since you don't know what happens behind the scenes at my site ;-P
>>
>> One essential constraint is, that everything's built through an
>> sysroot'ed cross-toolchain. Right after compile several checks
>> run on the output, packages are then trimmed-down (eg. removing
>> all build-time stuff) and then it goes to the testing system.
>> Only after the whole pipe ran through properly, the binary
>> package is committed to the production systems.
>>
>>> There's no need to fiddle with the build structure:
>>> you could still require the whole tree to build things
>>> and then just split up the post-build tree.
>>
>> The current approach already fails with crosscompiling.
>> I *can not* use the in-tree built mk for further building
>> and I *must* make sure that imports are strictly coming
>> from within sysroot.
>>
>>> Then you don't have to worry about rewriting Makefiles
>>> or adding your own configure scripts or other horrors.
>>> I certainly won't take any of that back into the main tree.
>>
>> You shouldn't generally declare this approach as horror,
>> just because autoconf is a horrible example.
>>
>>
>> cu
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/
>>
>>  cellphone: +49 174 7066481   email: info@metux.de   skype: nekrad666
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>