From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7D7DD795FCACD03C69AD16416271610F@5ess.inri.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:37:12 -0500
From: sl@9front.org
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: D3CB83A6-32DB-4D5B-B358-BC6A098F85BD@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] There is no fork
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d18db90a-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Feb 14, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Rui Carmo <rui.carmo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 Feb 2018, at 00:31, sl@9front.org wrote:
>=20
>> 1.) is the wrong approach.  Just build inside Plan 9.
>=20
> You missed the rest of the thread.

I read the entire thread but I didn=E2=80=99t see this point specifically
addressed.  From the latest posts it is still unclear where you plan
to do the compiling.

Okay, so let=E2=80=99s stipulate compiling on Plan 9.  Unless I missed it=
, the
relationship between your automated tools on the Linux host and the
build on the Plan 9 guest (for example, how they will communicate)
hasn=E2=80=99t been mentioned at all.  That=E2=80=99s why I brought up th=
e 9front fork
of drawterm as a possible facilitator.  It can handle 9front=E2=80=99s ne=
w
auth scheme and it can run individual commands.  Lacking something
like this, how else do you plan to control the build on Plan 9?

It also wasn=E2=80=99t clear to me that you=E2=80=99ve spent any signific=
ant time
actually using Plan 9.  It might even be a good idea to use the system
for a while, even without all the external automation, to figure out
if any of this is even worth your time.  A lot of people find they
don=E2=80=99t like Plan 9 once they get here.

Anyway, good luck with whatever your ultimate goal is.

sl