Debian port of Plan 9

Debian port of Plan 9

[Marty]

Hi list,

I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
for way to combine both interests.

How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
starting point?

If this happens, I see 9front as an upstream source for Debian, not a
competing project. I'm looking at 9front because it looks like the most
active Plan 9 project at the moment.

A Debian port would entail:

  - multiple architecture support
  - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
  - porting all the apps
  - adding the missing drivers
  - following Debian policy and release schedule
  - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port

I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
less visibility and support.

There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
a more professionally engineered solution.

Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
there. Thanks,

Marty

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[Jacob Todd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4 bytes --]

no.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21 bytes --]

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[Daniel Camolês]

Can't wait for systemd on Plan9!

2014-11-30 23:59 GMT-02:00 Marty <martyb@ix.netcom.com>:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
> for way to combine both interests.
>
> How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
> GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
> starting point?
>
> If this happens, I see 9front as an upstream source for Debian, not a
> competing project. I'm looking at 9front because it looks like the most
> active Plan 9 project at the moment.
>
> A Debian port would entail:
>
>  - multiple architecture support
>  - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
>  - porting all the apps
>  - adding the missing drivers
>  - following Debian policy and release schedule
>  - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port
>
> I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
> if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
> a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
> supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
> do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
> less visibility and support.
>
> There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
> so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
> problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
> replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
> a more professionally engineered solution.
>
> Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
> am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
> graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
> ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
> there. Thanks,
>
> Marty

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[Kurt H Maier]

Quoting Marty <martyb@ix.netcom.com>:

> Hi list,
>
> I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
> for way to combine both interests.
>
> How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
> GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
> starting point?
>
> If this happens, I see 9front as an upstream source for Debian, not a
> competing project. I'm looking at 9front because it looks like the most
> active Plan 9 project at the moment.
>
> A Debian port would entail:
>
>  - multiple architecture support
>  - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
>  - porting all the apps
>  - adding the missing drivers
>  - following Debian policy and release schedule
>  - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port
>
> I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
> if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
> a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
> supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
> do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
> less visibility and support.
>
> There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
> so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
> problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
> replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
> a more professionally engineered solution.
>
> Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
> am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
> graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
> ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
> there. Thanks,
>
> Marty

get out

RE: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[Justin Ennen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1959 bytes --]

No.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Marty" <martyb@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: ‎11/‎30/‎2014 6:02 PM
To: "9front@9front.org" <9front@9front.org>
Subject: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

Hi list,

I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
for way to combine both interests.

How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
starting point?

If this happens, I see 9front as an upstream source for Debian, not a
competing project. I'm looking at 9front because it looks like the most
active Plan 9 project at the moment.

A Debian port would entail:

  - multiple architecture support
  - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
  - porting all the apps
  - adding the missing drivers
  - following Debian policy and release schedule
  - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port

I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
less visibility and support.

There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
a more professionally engineered solution.

Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
there. Thanks,

Marty

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2940 bytes --]

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[tony]

Ack... No.

> Hi list,
>
> I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
> for way to combine both interests.
>
> How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
> GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
> starting point?
>
> If this happens, I see 9front as an upstream source for Debian, not a
> competing project. I'm looking at 9front because it looks like the most
> active Plan 9 project at the moment.
>
> A Debian port would entail:
>
>   - multiple architecture support
>   - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
>   - porting all the apps
>   - adding the missing drivers
>   - following Debian policy and release schedule
>   - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port
>
> I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
> if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
> a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
> supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
> do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
> less visibility and support.
>
> There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
> so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
> problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
> replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
> a more professionally engineered solution.
>
> Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
> am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
> graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
> ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
> there. Thanks,
>
> Marty
>

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[sl]

Welcome to the 9front mailing list.[0]

> I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
> for way to combine both interests.

Why?

Have you installed Plan 9? What do you do with it? What do you think is
missing?


> How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
> GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
> starting point?

What would be the purpose of doing a Debian port of Plan 9?

9front would not be a good starting point for a Debian-style fork of
Plan 9, because 9front's licensing is essentially identical to that
of the Bell Labs release. Nobody has bothered to sort out a specific
licensing scheme for new code. (Mainly because the people writing the
code don't care about licenses.) This is probably not compatible with
your goals.

You might want to check out Akaros[1], an an open source, GPL-licensed
operating system for manycore architectures that includes a GPLv2-licensed
copy of the Plan 9 (not 9front) source code.


> A Debian port would entail:
> 
>   - multiple architecture support

9front currently runs on the following platforms:

386
amd64
arm


>   - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)

Why?


>   - porting all the apps

What apps? And why? Most of this stuff is not wanted by Plan 9 users,
and in any case is grossly incompatible with Plan 9's interface conventions.
If you need these programs and enjoy the way most of them isolate you from
the general features of the operating system, why not just use the operating
systems where they already live?


>   - adding the missing drivers

Do you understand that Plan 9 is not Linux? Do you understand that Plan 9
is not even UNIX? New drivers need to be written from scratch.


>   - following Debian policy and release schedule

What is Debian policy and what is Debian's release schedule? Why should
Plan 9 users follow them? What benefit is delivered by all this bureaucracy?

Are you aware that the Bell Labs Plan 9 ISO image is already automatically
generated, every day?[2]


>   - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port

Are there any Debian developers who have ever used Plan 9? Why would
they want to? And why would Plan 9 users want to put them in charge of
Plan 9?


> I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
> if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
> a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
> supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
> do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
> less visibility and support.

I don't understand how bolting a Debian logo onto Plan 9 would improve
the situation we currently find ourselves in:

A world drowning in terrible software, much of which is propagated by
various Debian-related projects.

Adding more programmers and/or more users usually just results in adding
more garbage to the operating system. Most Plan 9 users are not interested
in that.


> There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
> so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
> problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
> replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
> a more professionally engineered solution.

This last bit raises a flag. Why are you suggesting a Debian port of
Plan 9 if you don't already know very much about either dbus or 9p? Are
you one of those people who proposes a massive project (note: staffed and
funded by others) after cursory evaluation of things that seem "neat"?

It also rasises a flag that you seem to think porting Linux programs to
Plan 9 is a desirable goal, in general. You seem to be suggesting that
the benefit is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained or justified.


> Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
> am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
> graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
> ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
> there.

How would a project that combines ports of some Plan 9 utilities with
attempts to replicate Plan 9 functionality using native tools on POSIX
systems help alleviate API, POSIX and FHS issues associated with porting
UNIX programs to Plan 9?

It really sounds like you don't know every much about Plan 9 at all,
and maybe not as much about Linux and UNIX as you might think. This is
not a sin, but is also not grounds for proposing a Debian port of Plan 9.

You're probably going to disagree with some of the things I wrote above.
The best way to work through this disconnect is to use Plan 9 for yourself
and see how you enjoy the experience. It could even turn out that Plan 9
is not for you.

In the meantime, to aid in your research, quite a lot of information about Plan 9 has been collected in the 9front FQA[3].

sl

[0] http://9front.org/img/welcome.jpg
[1] http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/akaros-web/news.php
[2] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/download.html
[3] http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/wiki/fqa

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[Marty]

On 11/30/2014 11:09 PM, sl@9front.org wrote:
> Welcome to the 9front mailing list.[0]
>
>> I'm still new to Plan 9. My current desktop is Debian, so I am looking
>> for way to combine both interests.

Before I go on, I see the Debian port idea opened a can of worms.
It was just an idea, and not a well considered one.

> Why?

I've been wanting to try Plan 9 for a long time. I want to see what
the Unix developers came up with, to replace Unix. Everything I read
and hear about it sounds good.

> Have you installed Plan 9?

I'm very late to this party. I just downloaded several ISOs to try.

    What do you do with it?

If it works out, I hope to set up several boxes, replace my nfs
network, fill in any missing software as time permits, and learn
about kernel development. That should keep me busy for awhile.

    What do you think is
> missing?

It looks like it could use more drivers. I might be also able to help
with small kernel patches or arch ports. That would be nearly impossible 
in Linux these days.

My background is mostly hardware design and embedded software. (No
Windows or Mac.) I've also done some Linux and other *nix drivers.

>> How feasible would it be to do a Debian port of Plan 9, like the Debian
>> GNU/Hurd experimental port, and how suitable would 9front be as a
>> starting point?
>
> What would be the purpose of doing a Debian port of Plan 9?

Their archive, infrastructure, and expertise might be of use, and I
think a lot of frustrated developers might be interested. I saw it as a
bridge for people to move away from *nix to something better, without
leaving Debian. Now I'm not so sure.

> 9front would not be a good starting point for a Debian-style fork of
> Plan 9, because 9front's licensing is essentially identical to that
> of the Bell Labs release. Nobody has bothered to sort out a specific
> licensing scheme for new code. (Mainly because the people writing the
> code don't care about licenses.) This is probably not compatible with
> your goals.

It sounds like a red flag, but I don't know much about licenses.

> You might want to check out Akaros[1], an an open source, GPL-licensed
> operating system for manycore architectures that includes a GPLv2-licensed
> copy of the Plan 9 (not 9front) source code.

Thanks for the tip.

>> A Debian port would entail:
>>
>>   - multiple architecture support
>
> 9front currently runs on the following platforms:
>
> 386
> amd64
> arm

That looks pretty good. Debian Hurd only has 32 bit x86.

>>   - porting the packaging system (dpkg/apt)
>
> Why?

Compatibility (dependencies) mostly. I think Plan 9 features like union
directories and namespaces might eliminate or change the requirement,
and some Linux distros are experimenting with similar ideas. I am also
looking at JIT compiling and compile-from-source. I suspect the distro-
as-packager model is obsolete. Debian will have to change here and an
experimental port seemed like the place to test it.

>>   - porting all the apps
>
> What apps? And why? Most of this stuff is not wanted by Plan 9 users,
> and in any case is grossly incompatible with Plan 9's interface conventions.
> If you need these programs and enjoy the way most of them isolate you from
> the general features of the operating system, why not just use the operating
> systems where they already live?

I think you're right. Appealing to the lowest common denominator of 
users is problem in Debian right now (systemd issue in a nutshell).
I would not want to see it in any new port. Popularity is a
double-edged sword, but I don't know how to prevent it, or prevent it
from corrupting development.

>>   - adding the missing drivers
>
> Do you understand that Plan 9 is not Linux? Do you understand that Plan 9
> is not even UNIX? New drivers need to be written from scratch.

Yes, yes, and yes, drivers are a serious commitment of time and effort,
but I want to see what it's like to work with Plan 9's kernel. That's
the part the interests me the most.

>>   - following Debian policy and release schedule
>
> What is Debian policy and what is Debian's release schedule? Why should
> Plan 9 users follow them? What benefit is delivered by all this bureaucracy?

I think Debian policy is mostly about criteria for package acceptance:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/

I don't like the bureaucracy either, but I was hoping that an
experimental port would get minimal interference. Could be wishful
thinking.

> Are you aware that the Bell Labs Plan 9 ISO image is already automatically
> generated, every day?[2]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I think the site was down when I checked.

>>   - finding Debian developers who will sponsor and sustain the port
>
> Are there any Debian developers who have ever used Plan 9?

None that I know, and while looking, I just found this:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/08/msg00619.html

So it looks like idea that has already been proposed and rejected.
Now seems like an even worse time to propose it.

    Why would
> they want to? And why would Plan 9 users want to put them in charge of
> Plan 9?

It's a good question and I never looked at it that way. Debian was a 
small and vulnerable project when I started using it, but in reality
it's a 600 pound gorilla.

How a port might affect or even harm Plan 9, or 9front, is a serious
question. I think 9front have answered it, and now I understand that.
Projects should probably stay clear of the trainweck.

>> I don't know anything about getting approval for such a project, but
>> if it happens I think there will be a lot of interest. Debian seems like
>> a natural fit because it is the only distro (that I know of) that
>> supports alternate OSs and kernels, and Plan 9 would be the first to
>> do both. The port could also be done unofficially, but it would have
>> less visibility and support.
>
> I don't understand how bolting a Debian logo onto Plan 9 would improve
> the situation we currently find ourselves in:
>
> A world drowning in terrible software, much of which is propagated by
> various Debian-related projects.
>
> Adding more programmers and/or more users usually just results in adding
> more garbage to the operating system. Most Plan 9 users are not interested
> in that.

I agree, I was only looking at it from the perspective of getting
developers, not non-technical users.

>> There are many porting issues. A large number of Debian apps use dbus,
>> so that might be a biggest obstacle to porting (this is a general
>> problem in Debian ports). Could 9p be used instead as a dbus
>> replacement? I don't know much about either protocol, but 9p seems like
>> a more professionally engineered solution.
>
> This last bit raises a flag. Why are you suggesting a Debian port of
> Plan 9 if you don't already know very much about either dbus or 9p? Are
> you one of those people who proposes a massive project (note: staffed and
> funded by others) after cursory evaluation of things that seem "neat"?

Just asking questions at this point. I am not even close to proposing
anything, but I think there is a lot of interest.

> It also rasises a flag that you seem to think porting Linux programs to
> Plan 9 is a desirable goal, in general. You seem to be suggesting that
> the benefit is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained or justified.

I see your point. I didn't give that statement much thought.

>> Unix APIs, POSIX and FHS are also porting issues to contend with, but I
>> am hoping the Plan 9 for User Space will alleviate some of those. For
>> graphics apps, could ports be done from one of the frame buffer
>> ports, like the Debian ARM port? I have more questions, but I'll stop
>> there.
>
> How would a project that combines ports of some Plan 9 utilities with
> attempts to replicate Plan 9 functionality using native tools on POSIX
> systems help alleviate API, POSIX and FHS issues associated with porting
> UNIX programs to Plan 9?

I totally misunderstood its purpose and I have no interest in porting
Plan 9 apps to Linux. That should have been framed as a question.

> It really sounds like you don't know every much about Plan 9 at all,
> and maybe not as much about Linux and UNIX as you might think. This is
> not a sin, but is also not grounds for proposing a Debian port of Plan 9.

Sorry if I gave any other impression. I am a just starting out and
asking questions. I'm also not a userspace guy, and I guess it shows.
Plan 9 looks like userspace done right and that intrigues me.

> You're probably going to disagree with some of the things I wrote above.
> The best way to work through this disconnect is to use Plan 9 for yourself
> and see how you enjoy the experience. It could even turn out that Plan 9
> is not for you.

I will give it a shot. Thanks for your reply. This was very helpful.

> In the meantime, to aid in your research, quite a lot of information about Plan 9 has been collected in the 9front FQA[3].
>
> sl
>
> [0] http://9front.org/img/welcome.jpg
> [1] http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/akaros-web/news.php
> [2] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/download.html
> [3] http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/wiki/fqa
>

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[David L. Craig]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On 14Dec02:0233-0500, Marty wrote:

> On 11/30/2014 11:09 PM, sl@9front.org wrote:

> >Have you installed Plan 9?
> 
> I'm very late to this party. I just downloaded several ISOs to try.
> 
>    What do you do with it?
> 
> If it works out, I hope to set up several boxes, replace my nfs
> network, fill in any missing software as time permits, and learn
> about kernel development. That should keep me busy for awhile.

Check out my beta cookbook at http://dlc.casita.net/~dlc/vp9cb-dev
to get started and let me know if you have any problems.
-- 
<not cent from sell>
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!

Dave_Craig______________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
 You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
 Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[sl]

> Check out my beta cookbook at http://dlc.casita.net/~dlc/vp9cb-dev
> to get started and let me know if you have any problems.

He was asking about 9front.

sl

Re: [9front] Debian port of Plan 9

[David L. Craig]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On 14Dec02:1533-0500, sl@9front.org wrote:

> > Check out my beta cookbook at http://dlc.casita.net/~dlc/vp9cb-dev
> > to get started and let me know if you have any problems.
> 
> He was asking about 9front.

My apologies.  Inferno and 9front are for the next version.
-- 
<not cent from sell>
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!

Dave_Craig______________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
 You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
 Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]