On 5/8/26 13:38, Yaroslav K wrote: > Hi all, > > I’ve completed a full backport of git9 to the 4th Edition / 9legacy > environment. Earlier attempts existed, and I reviewed the 9legacy > patches carefully, but even with all undocumented dependencies > applied, the result still wasn’t in a state where the same codebase > could run unmodified across systems. > > Instead of stacking more patches, I focused on the concrete > incompatibilities that the port actually encountered: differences > in rc syntax, flag parsing, libc interfaces, date/time formatting, > awk behaviour, and the availability of certain helper utilities. > None of these were major individually, but together they prevented > a clean build and consistent behaviour on 4e. > > > The goal was to make git9 edition-agnostic without forking much of > the code. The result now builds and runs cleanly on both 9front > and 4e/9legacy. > > In practical terms, this meant replacing newer rc constructs with > legacy-compatible forms, avoiding the 9front-specific aux/getflags > syntax, steering clear of newer libc calls like Bfdopen, using date > formatting primitives available on both systems, working around awk > differences, and importing a small set of auxiliary utilities so > that behaviour matches across both environments. The PR contains > the full details, but the overarching theme is reducing shallow > incompatibilities rather than introducing edition‑specific branches. > > To install the port, use the contrib mechanism: > > contrib/install yk/git > > The RFC PR is here for anyone who wants to review or discuss the > approach: > > https://github.com/9front/9front/pull/2 >
Apologies, I turned off PRs for the 9front repo since we do discussion through our mailing list without realizing it would delete and make current PRs vanish. I will say I find this a bit inconsiderate to the 9front project to purpose that we use this code. These changes between 9legacy and 9front were made for a reason, and we've made use of them (as you can see) in git9 to make our lives easier. You are asking us to revert back to old interfaces (that we had a problem with) because now you specifically want this sub-portion of our tree? What happens tomorrow when someone else wants another program from us? Are all of 9front's "useful" programs going to need to be able to cleanly compile on 9legacy? - moody ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Td167d7e8cebadcc4-M4e3ce97cc02c49bd19789f4d Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
