Re: [9fans] Plan 9 Go (Was: GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto)

[Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>]

If you could put just a tgz at sources I'm willing to test it,
even for updates, I could just unpack the tgz again and rebuild the thing.
although I don't have much spare time these days and it's likely
I wont be able to help other than by testing (sorry about that).

But it's great news in any case :)
Thanks a lot to you guys.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:59:22AM +0300, Pavel Zholkover wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure about gcc, but the go toolchain can produce quite well working
>> Plan 9 binaries.
>>
>> Taru also has the go toolchain running native in itself after some
>> modifications.
>>
> Is there a link to this, please?
>
> I want to take this opportunity to inform 9fans that Russ Cox has helped
> me extensively to update the Go release so that the source code for
> the 386 assembler, linker and C compiler (8a, 8l and 8c) can be built
> without further modification on a 386 Plan 9 native platform.  The leap
> to the other target CPU architectures (x64 and arm) is small and I have
> been preparing the patched sources for it.
>
> The obvious next step is 8g, but I'm holding back on that right now
> so that more extensive testing can take place, rather than propagate
> bad decisions.
>
> I need some help testing the work so far, even more I need some sound
> advice, specifically on how to release the scaffolding needed for the Plan
> 9 environment without prematurely adding it to the Go release.  At the
> moment, I'm using a CVS repository as a poor(stupid?)-man's version
> of Mercurial Queues and it is possible that this will continue to be
> adequate for a while still; I'm concerned about failure of vision, though.
>
> Putting the repository on "sources" may be one way of propagating my
> efforts at this point, but for obvious reasons updates will have to be
> submitted on a different channel.  Again, suggestions are welcome.  I do
> have Mercurial available on a public server, but I'm not comfortable with
> the tool enough to encourage its use at this point, I find grasping all
> the facets of revision control provided by mercurial extremely difficult.
>
> As for the testing required, I am looking for confirmation that 8c, 8a
> and 8l perform as expected in a Plan 9/386 environment, it is building
> this environment that I find hard to do right now, hence my request for
> some assistance.  Naturally, this can all be discussed offline.
>
> ++L
>
>