Re: [dev] several questions

2016-10-03 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:05:50PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > I will soon compile a recent linux kernel (with that c++ garbage which is > > gcc > > unfortunately) for x86_64/x86 and see if that kbluid was damaged again. >

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-27 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > I will soon compile a recent linux kernel (with that c++ garbage which is gcc > unfortunately) for x86_64/x86 and see if that kbluid was damaged again. It seems it was damaged again: New scripts, new bash-isms. Wonder who did

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-22 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:45:00AM -0400, stephen Turner wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:32:18PM -0400, stephen Turner wrote: > >> currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux > >> kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the Last

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-22 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 21 September 2016 at 16:45, Evan Gates wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM, FRIGN wrote: >> Of course, given there is only one implementation, it is highly >> portable per-se, given the interpretation is equal everywhere and 9base >> is quite easily

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread stephen Turner
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Ivan Tham wrote: > Hi, Stephen. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:32:18PM -0400, stephen Turner wrote: >> >> Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i >> currently understand it bash at the least is expected to

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread stephen Turner
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, FRIGN wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400 > stephen Turner wrote: > > Hey Stephen, > >> On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC >> and i also see a SCC in dev. What was the reason you

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Greg Reagle
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Evan Gates wrote: > Sadly there are two implementations. Yes, you're right. We already had this conversation about the two rc's [1] [2] and the consensus on this list is to prefer the Plan 9 version. So I meant the Plan 9 version in my previous messages. It

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Evan Gates
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM, FRIGN wrote: > Of course, given there is only one implementation, it is highly > portable per-se, given the interpretation is equal everywhere and 9base > is quite easily portable. Sadly there are two implementations. This rc[0] claims to be a

Re: FuzixOS: Because Small Is Beautiful WAS: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Antoni V.
He answered your reply on G+. https://plus.google.com/+AlanCoxLinux/posts/a2jAP7Pz1gj > Having looked deeper I think the suckless code is too buggy Sad :( Should Alan Cox be added to this mailing list thread as CC for more discussion, details about the bugs he found and (who knows) solutions?

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Cág
stephen Turner wrote: Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. mksh can be used as #!/bin/sh and has more features than dash for a convenient everyday use. For make there's bmake[0], NetBSD make ported to Linux. Cág [0]: http://www.crufty.net/help/sjg/bmake.html

Re: FuzixOS: Because Small Is Beautiful WAS: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Martin Kühne
I went ahead and relayed projects you mentioned. :-) cheers! mar77i

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread Ivan Tham
Hi, Stephen. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:32:18PM -0400, stephen Turner wrote: Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-21 Thread FRIGN
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:04:05 -0400 Greg Reagle wrote: Hey Greg, > Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not > portable"? It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like > operating systems and that it is highly portable. the thing is that

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-20 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 21 September 2016 at 04:04, Greg Reagle wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote: >> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not >> portable > > Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"? > It is my

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-20 Thread Greg Reagle
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote: > Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not > portable Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"? It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like operating systems and that it is

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-20 Thread pranomestro
> Hi, its my first post so i hope I'm not on the wrong group here or being > rude. Nope, dev is exactly right for that. > Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i > currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux > kernel. Is there any

Re: [dev] several questions

2016-09-20 Thread FRIGN
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400 stephen Turner wrote: Hey Stephen, > On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC > and i also see a SCC in dev. What was the reason you chose to write > SCC? Is it due to PCC's reliance on lex, yacc and m4?

[dev] several questions

2016-09-20 Thread stephen Turner
Hi, its my first post so i hope I'm not on the wrong group here or being rude. On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC and i also see a SCC in dev. What was the reason you chose to write SCC? Is it due to PCC's reliance on lex, yacc and m4? Bash and Make, I'm