Re: [dev] SYNChronous SendMail
I mean that if you always use same libc you only have to read it once, but if every problem have its own you have to read all of them. I do not think it changes it sucklessness. I just wasn't sure whether the reason was to have a single compilation unit or if there was some other point to it (as both was listed as futures). Although I do not expect you to do so. I would break out the libc to a standalone project or, depending on how well it would work (and if most of it could be done with a script), fork musl-libc and make it a header-only (+crt) library. Regards, Mattias Andrée On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:15:12 + sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote: > > What is the point of doing your own mini-libc within the > > program? Aren't you just making it less portable and > > adding more code to read? > > More code to read? Have you read the code of a standard libc? Not to mention > the SDK deps? Moreover, this "mini-lib", as you said it, is actually compiled > as 1 code unit with the application code (on a pi3 for the aarch64 port in a > few secs, max optimization, lol). Hardware portability code is really thin, > and > linux devs are smoothing that out (it's a WIP). > > I personally use it on x86_64 (my station) and aarch64 (pi3). > > Your question feels a bit like the following one : what's the point of > suckless? > > In the end, if this does not fit your definition of suckless, don't bother and > just look away, don't be offended, I do not expect less. > > Btw, I have also the receiving part but the code is quite older: > https://rocketgit.com/user/sylware/lnanosmtp I just did a bit of refactoring > for the "1 compilation unit" suff and some updating (I personally use it on > aarch64). As I did explain, gogol did a fine job at pushing me coding all > that. >
Re: [dev] SYNChronous SendMail
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:07:02PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote: > I mean that if you always use same libc you only have to read it once, > but if every problem have its own you have to read all of them. I do > not think it changes it sucklessness. I just wasn't sure whether the > reason was to have a single compilation unit or if there was some > other point to it (as both was listed as futures). > > Although I do not expect you to do so. I would break out the libc to > a standalone project or, depending on how well it would work (and if > most of it could be done with a script), fork musl-libc and make it > a header-only (+crt) library. "No libc" does not mean I have a massive and huge klugde like all libcs are to replace it. It is near a non sense to compare the ultra thin layer I use with a massive real libc (even the "light" ones are still massive compared to). There are several orders of magnitude in between. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] SYNChronous SendMail
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Mattias Andrée wrote: > What is the point of doing your own mini-libc within the > program? Aren't you just making it less portable and > adding more code to read? More code to read? Have you read the code of a standard libc? Not to mention the SDK deps? Moreover, this "mini-lib", as you said it, is actually compiled as 1 code unit with the application code (on a pi3 for the aarch64 port in a few secs, max optimization, lol). Hardware portability code is really thin, and linux devs are smoothing that out (it's a WIP). I personally use it on x86_64 (my station) and aarch64 (pi3). Your question feels a bit like the following one : what's the point of suckless? In the end, if this does not fit your definition of suckless, don't bother and just look away, don't be offended, I do not expect less. Btw, I have also the receiving part but the code is quite older: https://rocketgit.com/user/sylware/lnanosmtp I just did a bit of refactoring for the "1 compilation unit" suff and some updating (I personally use it on aarch64). As I did explain, gogol did a fine job at pushing me coding all that. -- Sylvain
Re: [dev] SYNChronous SendMail
Hi, What is the point of doing your own mini-libc within the program? Aren't you just making it less portable and adding more code to read? Regards, Mattias Andrée On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:49:19 + wrote: > Hi, > > For those who might be interested: > > I did write a lean/suckless-ish sendmail like program: > https://rocketgit.com/user/sylware/syncsm > > It is meant for devs/advanced sysadmins/very advanced users dealing themselves > with their "email server". I am currently using it (not on _this_ email > address > obviously, see below). > > Features: no libc (direct syscalls, x86_64/aarch64), "one compilation unit", > etc. > > > > As some of you may already know, gogol/gmail, for many pop/smtp users, is > blocking usually once a year their email accounts asking for a > re-authentication via the google account web interface. And since recently (a > year-ish), you cannot log in anymore without a full javascript www browser, > aka > gecko|blink/webkit (all are same-same). I am still using my gmail account till > it's blocked. > > They are now way beyond evil, and are re-united with the digital > organized crime where you have microsoft/apple (irony). > > regards, >
[dev] SYNChronous SendMail
Hi, For those who might be interested: I did write a lean/suckless-ish sendmail like program: https://rocketgit.com/user/sylware/syncsm It is meant for devs/advanced sysadmins/very advanced users dealing themselves with their "email server". I am currently using it (not on _this_ email address obviously, see below). Features: no libc (direct syscalls, x86_64/aarch64), "one compilation unit", etc. As some of you may already know, gogol/gmail, for many pop/smtp users, is blocking usually once a year their email accounts asking for a re-authentication via the google account web interface. And since recently (a year-ish), you cannot log in anymore without a full javascript www browser, aka gecko|blink/webkit (all are same-same). I am still using my gmail account till it's blocked. They are now way beyond evil, and are re-united with the digital organized crime where you have microsoft/apple (irony). regards, -- Sylvain
