Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?

[Andrew Simmons <kodogo@gmail.com>]

Steve, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your solution wouldn’t work for me, but it obviously does for you, so go in peace. And the answer to the question in my subject line is obviously “No”.

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:49 PM, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> 
> I have a different approach.
> 
> Personally I have only command line utilities as I keep Plan9 as my desktop (raspberry PI).
> 
> I need to cross compile on windows so I have a tool to cpu into a windows box (called dos).
> This allows me to have a rio window onto a a dos shell.
> 
> It does the trick like cpu(1) to allow me to hop from a plan9 rc(1) session (in a cifs
> mounted directory on the windows box), into an rc(1) session on windows and arrive at the same
> directory. 
> 
> I use 'local 9fs billy' at startup to make sure sam, rio, and all windows can see my windows box,
> thus plumb on windows "just works" to edit files.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> My windows box is called billy (after mr gates) and my plan9 one is custard (nice with raspberry pies).
> 
> 	custard% 
> 	custard% cat /dev/osversion ; echo
> 	2000
> 	custard% pwd
> 	/n/billy/c/New/Application
> 	custard% dos
> 	billy%  mswin/osversion
> 	Windows 7
> 	billy% pwd
> 	c:/New/Application
> 	billy% 
> 	billy% make
> 	mingw32-make -s - -C Debug Application.elf 
> 	billy% 
> 
> I could port gmake and the gcc cross compiler to plan9 to do this but there would always be
> bits missing and I need to be sure that what I check in can be built by other people working
> on windows.
> 
> It compiles under mingw32 - I started a mingw64 version but never finished the work (sorry).
> The port predates 9pf, I would probably have used that if I had existed. It also contains none
> of the graphics code that 9pf has, so no native windows sam; though I have no need of it in my
> environment.
> 
> This is all available if anyone wants it.
> 
> -Steve
>