From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d032af1bdde883d6ca28965e81ea12f6@mikro.quanstro.net>
References: <a76458dfd06fb48b58b559b2e5fdad94@pi.att>
	<CAOw7k5jwTxQ7fXrrnip6_hRi4tAFLpU0sqnZyxQcKfN835a8QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140508013839.Horde.wae3OotgWyZlA6O725OpyQ1@ssl.eumx.net>
	<d032af1bdde883d6ca28965e81ea12f6@mikro.quanstro.net>
Date: Thu,  8 May 2014 09:14:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CANE8QwcUD+ap9jXAo-=4BYDwsUMd6aCbn08tmiHfSr88xm-3tA@mail.gmail.com>
From: balaji <balaji.srinivasa+plan9@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e32afe9e-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

When Charles brought up that 64bit binaries can be built from Labs
distribution, it would have been so much simple if either 9atom or
9front owners took a quick look at what was there and confirmed what
he meant by "binaries".
To a lot of lurkers it's still not clear what the labs amd64 binaries
are. bootable kernel? commands?

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:06 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> On Wed May  7 21:40:05 EDT 2014, khm@sciops.net wrote:
>> Quoting Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > they weren't "shot down", but saying use MY distribution over here,
>> > or use MY distribution over here,
>
> what i said was that both 9front and 9atom have the relevant bits in
> an easily accessible location.  i mentioned this in an attempt to be
> helpful, and i'm sorry it was not.
>
> - erik
>