Re: [9front] drawterm lib configuration

[Romano <me+unobe@fallglow.com>]

On Wed Aug 28 07:31:20 -0700 2024, moody@posixcafe.org wrote:
> What defaults are you changing here?

Setting up different plumbing rules, different fonts
(remember that bad patch for rio border size?), certain
mounts. For example, when I drawterm from a mac I use
osascript to open a new tab for web links, and open any docx
files on the Mac. I also create a 9pfs mount (as explained on
the wiki) to browse files using the Finder, if I prefer.

> Most of our scripts have this blank line, it's style.

Thanks for pointing that out. I see 77/135 of the scripts in
/bin/rc have a second blank line, so 57% overall:
cpu% { for (f in `{walk -f /rc/bin}) { echo `{sed 2q $f | tail -1} } } | sort | uniq -c | sort -r | sed 4q
  77 
  25 rfork e
   3 rfork en
   2 if(~ $#* 3){
cpu% ls /rc/bin | wc -l
    135

This isn't comprehensive by any means, but just a directory I knew
had a lot of system rc scripts. For comparison, /bin/git directory (like /sys/lib/newuser) isn't included in the numbers above:
cpu% { for (f in `{walk -f /bin/git}) { echo `{sed 2q $f | tail -1} } } | sort | uniq -c | sort -r | sed 3q
   8 rfork ne
   5 rfork en
   3 

In your experience, is calling rfork on the second line an exception to
that style? If so, that would make about 78% of the scripts in /rc/bin
conform to the style. But removing the '| sed 4q' at the end, you'd also
see quite a few first lines being explanatory comments of what the script
does, and about a dozen that just call exec.

I haven't checked out a Plan 9's 4th edition or previous edition to
compare to see if it has been newer style, or just always been a
hodge-podge.

Regardless, it's good for me to be aware of that: thank you.

> What do you mean "forcing directory creation" you're calling mkdir,
> you're creating directories. The two calls with -p or not with your
> ordering are equivalent.

Forcing intermediate directory creation, so really the 'bin' dir. This
just reflected how the long-form was before my patch: it didn't use -p.
I didn't know if there was a good reason for that, and thought it might
have been for some esoteric but valid reason related to creating bin
first, before its subdirectories. So I decided to write it without -p.

> >>> @@ -22,38 +21,41 @@
> >>>  font=/lib/font/bit/vga/unicode.font
> >>>  switch($x^service){
> >>>  case terminal
> >>> -	webcookies
> >>> -	webfs
> >>> -	plumber
> >>>  	echo -n accelerated > '#m/mousectl'
> >>>  	echo -n 'res 3' > '#m/mousectl'
> >>>  	prompt=('term% ' '	')
> >>>  	fn term%{ $x^* }
> >>> +	webcookies
> >>> +	webfs
> >>> +	plumber
> >>>  	rio
> >>>
> >>> What does moving this around achieve?
> >>
> >> I didn't think it was foolish to have consistency with the other case 
> >> (cpu) to have those run at the end. I didn't see the point of having 
> >> them before those other commands.
> 
> The point is to avoid churn, but I'm bikeshedding.

I'm not sure it's bikeshedding here. My perspective is that a script should
not do the same thing in a different order unless called for. I was trying
to determine why the first three calls were separated from the last, when
that isn't the case for cpu. I assume I will read this script again, and so
considered it a benefit for the human reader to consolidate the calls as is
done in the cpu case.

> Right, drawterm does add it's own /dev/ to the root before exposing the
> namesapce to the remote system so you'll see drawterm's /dev.
> My recollection of the ordering was wrong and in retrospect doesn't make sense.
> 
> That first check is just checking to see if we should make use of the /mnt/term/dev anyway,
> so it seems fine to have that be the check there.

*Whew*, well I'm glad that was one less thing I had possibly fumbled!

Thanks again for the feedback, moody.