From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from b.painless.aa.net.uk ([81.187.30.52]) by ur; Thu Aug 11 04:48:20 EDT 2016
Received: from 10.190.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.190.10] helo=quintile.net)
	by b.painless.aa.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.77)
	(envelope-from <steve@quintile.net>)
	id 1bXlee-0002vL-B2
	for 9front@9front.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:47:56 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.70] ([86.157.132.139]) by quintile.net; Thu Aug 11 09:47:52 BST 2016
Subject: Re: [9front] inquery: plans for phasing out cpu, rx and import
References: <CAFSF3XP1jfG3BKCQkL4nbsV1orob7BXcxrTXe4Lxm3Y-8j5chg@mail.gmail.com> <735bd46159bae3ce5da21ce3c13b9321@felloff.net> <CAFSF3XOt4UxXciu_DD64tkPbw-yuVNyKon+wxEWHd+TTgRaoOg@mail.gmail.com> <335d7a70-6e7f-429b-8248-d2997ee7743c@email.android.com> <20160809153307.GA39931@wopr>
From: Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13G35)
In-Reply-To: <20160809153307.GA39931@wopr>
Message-Id: <00E66543-E527-4AC8-8756-4022A255FB6B@quintile.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:47:51 +0100
To: 9front@9front.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: leveraged factory base framework 

yep,

still on the labs code base.

btw. is there a documented way to jump ship to 9 front?

-Steve

> On 9 Aug 2016, at 16:33, Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:
>=20
>> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:09:41AM -0400, stanley lieber wrote:
>>=20
>> So we keep things like ftp and nfs clients in the base system but remove t=
he ability to talk to Plan 9?
>>=20
>=20
> I didn't see this as removing support for a protocol so much as removing
> an older version of the protocol -- like not shipping support for nfsv1
> or whatever.  I have reconsidered and I agree, we should keep them.
>=20
>> Disabling the listeners on 9front is obvious, and since Plan 9 is dead, m=
aintenance is not really needed, but why remove it, exactly? Just to feel "c=
lean"?
>=20
> Originally I supported removing them because they were completely
> superseded by rcpu et al; if what we have is sufficient, it would
> simplify code maintenance and documentation, presumably, to remove the
> cruft.
>=20
>> We still keep a lot of other dirty stuff, specifically so we can talk to o=
ther outmoded servers that are not even Plan 9. Maybe Plan 9 systems are so r=
are it doesn't matter, but this policy seems quite randomly applied.
>=20
> This is what made me reconsider -- as long as sources is up, I don't
> like the idea of losing access to labs contrib.  Obviously we could
> make it available with our tools...
>=20
> ... on the other hand, when was the last time any of us saw a labs plan
> 9 installation that wasn't some transient nerd totem, like a raspberry
> pi or something? =20
>=20
> Anyone on this list touch labs plan 9 on the regular?
>=20
> khm