Re: [dev] several questions

[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.
> 
> It seems it was damaged again: New scripts, new bash-isms. Wonder who did 
> those
> beginner mistakes.
> 
> I'll try to fix this.

Was a 5 liner patch to the shell script generating the x86 and x86_64 syscall
tables. Patch posted on the lkml. Still no news from the x86 maintainers. lkml
etiquette mandates a ping every 15 days if no feedback was received yet.

-- 
Sylvain

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 those
beginner mistakes.

I'll try to fix this.

cheers,

-- 
Sylvan

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 time I compiled a linux kernel (a year ago), I did it with dash.

The script which links the linux kernel was full of bash-isms. I fixed this, a
year and a half ago, with the guy in charge of kbuild in the linux fondation,
a.k.a.  Michal Marek (once he was kind of forced to apply my patches by Ingo
Molnar and Greg K.H.  ...).

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.

-- 
Sylvain

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 portable.
>
> Sadly there are two implementations. This rc[0] claims to be a
> reimplementation for unix systems, but contains incompatible changes.
> Here is the list of problems from the man page:

There are two, but only the original one can be considered. Byron's rc
was supposed to work in a regular unix environment with GNU userland.
But especially its environment handling is completely different to the
original rc, which allows exporting fn's.

-Anselm

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 compile the linux
>> kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the
>> net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but
>> neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect.
>
>
> For me, I think bach it very much bloated. I would definitely agree that
> mksh or dash is a lot better. Well about rc, I wouldn't recommend that
> since it's a total different syntax compared to POSIX shell, although
> posix shell definitely have some weaknesses, it's still more portable.

I wouldn't mind using dash or similar but the kernel dependency for
bash is holding me back from removing bash entirely. Its not just the
kernel I'm sure but thats one that comes to mind.

>
> And about make, I would recommend make, I didn't check the source code
> for both make and mk but I did some benchmark back then, make is still
> the fastest build system that I have tested and it have a clean but
> weird syntax. But just beware of autotools and autoconf.
>
>> I love the site and the list of tools you have found to "suck less"
>> looking
>> great!
>
>
> Nice, hope you could help us out starting with some of the project
> ideas. http://suckless.org/project_ideas

I don't know C but if i find anything worth contributing i certainly will.

>
> --
> Do what you like, like what you do.  -- Pickfire
>

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 chose to write
>> SCC? Is it due to PCC's reliance on lex, yacc and m4?
>
> The last PCC release (1.1.0) was in 2014. Of course, this does not mean
> much, but it does not receive any major attention as of late.
> Additionally, and I can't speak for Roberto here, the goals of scc go
> in a different direction. Stay tuned for Roberto's talk at slcon3.

They are not cutting regular releases but the CVS is getting updates.
They also have it time stamp every day with a tarball release so its
kinda hard to track when they actually do work if your not on the
mailing list.

>
>> 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 net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend
>> mksh and dash but neither have bashisms that some projects seem to
>> expect.
>
> Just don't use bash, but the Posix shell. Use the "#!/bin/sh"shebang
> and test your scripts with shellcheck[0], which is also pretty reliable
> in detecting bashisms.
> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not
> portable and most unixoid OSes offer it.
> For make: Some people recommend mk, I'd recommend just being aware of
> GNUisms for make and try to make it portable (it's not difficult).

I try to keep my scripts pretty generic as i tend to use them on
multiple platforms, linux and os x mostly. i also specify sh :)

>
>> I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux
>> but i was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project
>> somewhere?
>
> I'm sure you mean "BLOBs", which are binary chunks of proprietary
> machine code. To be honest, I don't mind that running in my system,
> however, in the long run one should try to select hardware that is not
> requiring BLOBs in the first place (Broadcom is a sinner in this
> regard). All this "Libre" bullshit with projects to "clean up" the
> Linux kernel don't achieve anything beyond ideological satisfaction.
> Stop singing the false song of "Libre Software" and rather make smart
> decisions in life.
> If you end up configuring your Kernel yourself and remove everything
> you don't need in the first place (including all drivers with BLOBs),
> your compilate won't contain BLOBs as well.

I haven't used libre linux yet. Seems like a bit of a hassle honestly
but i like the idea. For me the appeal is just having everything in
code like it should be and being open for audit or improvement.

>
> With best regards
>
> FRIGN
>
> [0]: https://www.shellcheck.net/
>
> --
> FRIGN 
>

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 is
unfortunate that they both have the same name but are different, but
Plan 9's rc came first so the other one should have chosen a new name or
stayed compatible.

[1] http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1604/28800.html
[2] http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1604/28804.html

Re: [dev] several questions

[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
reimplementation for unix systems, but contains incompatible changes.
Here is the list of problems from the man page:

Here is a list of features which distinguish this incarnation of rc
from the one described in the Bell Labs manual pages:

The Tenth Edition rc does not have the else keyword.  Instead, if is
optionally followed by an if not clause which is executed  if the
preceding if test does not succeed.

Backquotes  are  slightly different in Tenth Edition rc: a backquote
must always be followed by a left-brace.  This restriction is not
present for single-word commands in this rc.

For .  file, the Tenth Edition rc searches $path for file.  This rc
does not, since it is not considered useful.

The list flattening operator, $^foo, is spelt $"foo in those versions
of the Bell Labs rc which have it.

The following are all new with this version of rc: The -n flag, here
strings (they facilitate exporting  of  functions  with  here
documents into the environment), the return and break keywords, the
echo builtin, the bqstatus and version variables, the support for the
GNU readline(3) library, and the support for the prompt function.
This rc also sets $0 to the name of  a  function  being executed/file
being sourced.

[0]https://github.com/rakitzis/rc

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

[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

[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

[Martin Kühne]

I went ahead and relayed projects you mentioned. :-)

cheers!
mar77i

Re: [dev] several questions

[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
net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but
neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect.


For me, I think bach it very much bloated. I would definitely agree that
mksh or dash is a lot better. Well about rc, I wouldn't recommend that
since it's a total different syntax compared to POSIX shell, although
posix shell definitely have some weaknesses, it's still more portable.

And about make, I would recommend make, I didn't check the source code
for both make and mk but I did some benchmark back then, make is still
the fastest build system that I have tested and it have a clean but
weird syntax. But just beware of autotools and autoconf.


I love the site and the list of tools you have found to "suck less" looking
great!


Nice, hope you could help us out starting with some of the project
ideas. http://suckless.org/project_ideas

--
Do what you like, like what you do.  -- Pickfire

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 99.9% of people on Linux or the *BSDs don't even have
rc available. I don't think one should force users to install 9base
just so they are able to run packaging scripts or other scripts of some
sort.

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.

Cheers

FRIGN

-- 
FRIGN 

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like operating
> systems and that it is highly portable.

I was thinking exactly the same. Portability is not about being able
to compile 9base on Windows, it is that rc scripts behave in a 9base
environment exactly the same, regardless if FreeBSE, Linux, OSX or
whatever is underneath.

-Anselm

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 highly portable.

Re: [dev] several questions

[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 suitable projects that you may have seen around the
>  net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but
>  neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect.

I think the bashisms are part of what is considered sucky. mksh and dash are
both posix shells, I personally tend to recommend rc, which has fixed most
of the issues I have with "normal" shells (like quoting issues, lists, a
portable and clean implementation etc.).

I think make is considered the most practical suckless option for build systems.
If you want make with nice goodies I can recommmend the plan9 equivalent, mk
(https://github.com/dcjones/mk is a more recent implementation in go).

>  I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux but i
>  was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project somewhere?

No idea, sorry.

pranomostro

Re: [dev] several questions

[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?

The last PCC release (1.1.0) was in 2014. Of course, this does not mean
much, but it does not receive any major attention as of late.
Additionally, and I can't speak for Roberto here, the goals of scc go
in a different direction. Stay tuned for Roberto's talk at slcon3.

> 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 net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend
> mksh and dash but neither have bashisms that some projects seem to
> expect.

Just don't use bash, but the Posix shell. Use the "#!/bin/sh"shebang
and test your scripts with shellcheck[0], which is also pretty reliable
in detecting bashisms.
Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not
portable and most unixoid OSes offer it.
For make: Some people recommend mk, I'd recommend just being aware of
GNUisms for make and try to make it portable (it's not difficult).

> I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux
> but i was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project
> somewhere?

I'm sure you mean "BLOBs", which are binary chunks of proprietary
machine code. To be honest, I don't mind that running in my system,
however, in the long run one should try to select hardware that is not
requiring BLOBs in the first place (Broadcom is a sinner in this
regard). All this "Libre" bullshit with projects to "clean up" the
Linux kernel don't achieve anything beyond ideological satisfaction.
Stop singing the false song of "Libre Software" and rather make smart
decisions in life.
If you end up configuring your Kernel yourself and remove everything
you don't need in the first place (including all drivers with BLOBs),
your compilate won't contain BLOBs as well.

With best regards

FRIGN

[0]: https://www.shellcheck.net/

-- 
FRIGN 

[dev] several questions

[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 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
 net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend mksh and dash but
 neither have bashisms that some projects seem to expect.

 I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux but i
 was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project somewhere?

 I love the site and the list of tools you have found to "suck less" looking
 great!

 Thanks,
 Stephen