From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <84F7F989-9A31-4295-8A02-91A4EF65EA1A@gmail.com> References: <052AE7BC-8AD5-4C0D-9E7A-F67F9B02905C@gmail.com> <142EFC4E-150D-4752-9FBD-3FDB4EE4E967@yahoo.ca> <84F7F989-9A31-4295-8A02-91A4EF65EA1A@gmail.com> From: Joseph Stewart Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:09:08 -0700 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d9c4e9bfcaa0538ab24e8 Subject: Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9689a6de-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a113d9c4e9bfcaa0538ab24e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use? On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo wrote: > Hey Chris > > Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn=E2=80=99t use. The guys who did = pf9 used > mingw. Which I also wouldn=E2=80=99t use. I like MS Visual Studio with ac= cess to > the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. > > I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like > Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a > minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks > installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > > > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p= . > > > > Chris > > > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: > >> > >> What the subject line says. > >> > >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan=E2=80=99s 9pm= , or the > guys who did pf9. I=E2=80=99m just asking because there are still chunks = of p9p > that I=E2=80=99d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (m= ostly the > command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I=E2=80=99ve managed = to build > under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to > eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don=E2=80=99t use synta= x > highlighting))) > >> > >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to b= e > dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp > for another. > >> > >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the > Unix-specific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? > >> > >> Go in peace > >> James V Choate XXXVI > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > --001a113d9c4e9bfcaa0538ab24e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use?

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 = at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo <kodogo@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Chris

Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn=E2=80=99t use. The guys who did pf= 9 used mingw. Which I also wouldn=E2=80=99t use. I like MS Visual Studio wi= th access to the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour = me bigoted.

I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsof= t development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority t= aste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd pa= rty tools and then being told how stupid they are.
> On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chr= is McGee <sirnewton_01@yahoo.ca= > wrote:
>
> I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9= p.
>
> Chris
>
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons <kodogo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What the subject line says.
>>
>> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan=E2=80=99s= 9pm, or the guys who did pf9. I=E2=80=99m just asking because there are st= ill chunks of p9p that I=E2=80=99d like to have under Windows. Some of the = chunks I want (mostly the command line utilities, also sam, not so much acm= e) I=E2=80=99ve managed to build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to sel= f - wash mouth out and learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to= self, don=E2=80=99t use syntax highlighting)))
>>
>> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem = to be dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sig= jmp for another.
>>
>> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-sp= ecific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows?
>>
>> Go in peace
>> James V Choate XXXVI
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--001a113d9c4e9bfcaa0538ab24e8--