Re: svr4, again
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, 6:17 PM Maxime Villard Le 20/12/2018 à 18:11, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit : > > https://github.com/krytarowski/franz-lisp-netbsd-0.9-i386 > > > > On the other hand unless we need it for bootloaders, drivers or > > something needed to run NetBSD, I'm for removal of srv3, sunos etc > compat. > > Yes. > > So, first things first, and to come back to my email about ibcs2: what are > the reasons for keeping it? As I said previously, this is not for x86 but > for Vax. As was also said, FreeBSD removed it just a few days ago. > It had been disconnected from the build for a while too... Warner I'm bringing up compat_ibcs2 because I did start a thread on port-vax@ about > it last year (as quoted earlier), and back then it seemed that no one knew > what was the use case on Vax. >
Re: svr4, again
Le 20/12/2018 à 18:11, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit : https://github.com/krytarowski/franz-lisp-netbsd-0.9-i386 On the other hand unless we need it for bootloaders, drivers or something needed to run NetBSD, I'm for removal of srv3, sunos etc compat. Yes. So, first things first, and to come back to my email about ibcs2: what are the reasons for keeping it? As I said previously, this is not for x86 but for Vax. As was also said, FreeBSD removed it just a few days ago. I'm bringing up compat_ibcs2 because I did start a thread on port-vax@ about it last year (as quoted earlier), and back then it seemed that no one knew what was the use case on Vax.
Re: svr4, again
matthew green wrote: > Christos Zoulas writes: > > > > Well, I still have a lisp from 0.9 :-) Anyway if we get rid of a.out we > > might as well get rid of compat <= 1.5... > > netbsd had ELF ports before 1.5. i forget when, but at > least alpha and maybe mips were ELF before i386/sparc's > conversion from a.out in 1.5. > > IIRC. For MIPS I've got some old binaries lying about. There's a '95 a.out binary and a '97 ELF binary so looks like MIPS switched at 1.1 or 1.2. Probably easier to look at share/mk CVS history to work out when :) Cheers, Simon.
Re: svr4, again
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 2:36 PM, matthew green wrote: > > netbsd had ELF ports before 1.5. i forget when, but at > least alpha and maybe mips were ELF before i386/sparc's > conversion from a.out in 1.5. Yah, I think Alpha was ECOFF **very briefly**, but went ELF pretty quick. -- thorpej
re: svr4, again
Christos Zoulas writes: > In article <3af3b7c6-d34e-471d-8cf8-a411e9032...@me.com>, > Jason Thorpe wrote: > >While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out > >exec package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running > >ancient a.out binaries. > > Well, I still have a lisp from 0.9 :-) Anyway if we get rid of a.out we > might as well get rid of compat <= 1.5... netbsd had ELF ports before 1.5. i forget when, but at least alpha and maybe mips were ELF before i386/sparc's conversion from a.out in 1.5. IIRC. .mrg.
Re: svr4, again
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Terry Moore wrote: > > Nothing as nice as Franz Lisp. Internal little utilities for which we don’t > have source handy and/or we're too lazy to rebuild. I have a (licensed) > version of Unipress Emacs, but I finally gave up and rebuilt that around the > 5.0 transition because of X issues; and as I'm the only user here for that, > and I've finally moved on, it's only the old utilities. It's always just been > cheaper (in time) to dig up the 0.9 emulation. We've been running NetBSD > since 1994 or so, I think, so these kinds of things accumulate. If github had > been around in 1994 they'd probably all be open source and readily buildable. > But... > > The big issue with maintaining older tools is that they don't always > recompile with new compilers; even if they actually work. People make the > toolchains more and more persnickety, and it's just not worth the effort to > track the compiler flavor of the week, when the problem is not that the tools > are wrong, but that they were written with a more "assembly-language in C" > mindset. Which is seriously out of style. Ok, you win :-) -- thorpej
Re: svr4, again
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 12:29 PM, Maxime Villard wrote: > So, first things first, and to come back to my email about ibcs2: what are > the reasons for keeping it? As I said previously, this is not for x86 but > for Vax. As was also said, FreeBSD removed it just a few days ago. > > I'm bringing up compat_ibcs2 because I did start a thread on port-vax@ about > it last year (as quoted earlier), and back then it seemed that no one knew > what was the use case on Vax. It seems reasonable to remove COMPAT_IBCS2, for the same reasons as COMPAT_SVR4. -- thorpej
RE: svr4, again
> Jason Thorpe wrote: While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient a.out binaries. >>> >>> NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. >> >> Here, too. > > Well, then you have my sympathies, my admiration, and my curiosity all at the > same time! > > No, seriously, what ancient binaries are you running? (Ok, I admit, it's > pretty cool that it still works after all this time...) Nothing as nice as Franz Lisp. Internal little utilities for which we don’t have source handy and/or we're too lazy to rebuild. I have a (licensed) version of Unipress Emacs, but I finally gave up and rebuilt that around the 5.0 transition because of X issues; and as I'm the only user here for that, and I've finally moved on, it's only the old utilities. It's always just been cheaper (in time) to dig up the 0.9 emulation. We've been running NetBSD since 1994 or so, I think, so these kinds of things accumulate. If github had been around in 1994 they'd probably all be open source and readily buildable. But... The big issue with maintaining older tools is that they don't always recompile with new compilers; even if they actually work. People make the toolchains more and more persnickety, and it's just not worth the effort to track the compiler flavor of the week, when the problem is not that the tools are wrong, but that they were written with a more "assembly-language in C" mindset. Which is seriously out of style. --Terry
Re: svr4, again
On 20.12.2018 20:29, Robert Swindells wrote: > > Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> On 20.12.2018 17:58, Jason Thorpe wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Terry Moore wrote: Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec >> package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running >> ancient a.out binaries. >> > > NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. Here, too. >>> >>> Well, then you have my sympathies, my admiration, and my curiosity all at >>> the same time! >>> >>> No, seriously, what ancient binaries are you running? (Ok, I admit, it's >>> pretty cool that it still works after all this time...) >>> >>> -- thorpej >>> >> >> https://github.com/krytarowski/franz-lisp-netbsd-0.9-i386 > > Maybe worth pointing out that to use that package you would also need > an a.out gcc toolchain. > > The Lisp compiler generates C that you then compile and link into the > running Lisp executable. > a.out toolchain is needed for liszt, lisp works fine without it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: svr4, again
Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >On 20.12.2018 17:58, Jason Thorpe wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Terry Moore wrote: >>> >>> Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec > package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running > ancient a.out binaries. > NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. >>> >>> Here, too. >> >> Well, then you have my sympathies, my admiration, and my curiosity all at >> the same time! >> >> No, seriously, what ancient binaries are you running? (Ok, I admit, it's >> pretty cool that it still works after all this time...) >> >> -- thorpej >> > >https://github.com/krytarowski/franz-lisp-netbsd-0.9-i386 Maybe worth pointing out that to use that package you would also need an a.out gcc toolchain. The Lisp compiler generates C that you then compile and link into the running Lisp executable.
Re: svr4, again
In article <3af3b7c6-d34e-471d-8cf8-a411e9032...@me.com>, Jason Thorpe wrote: >While I agree that itâs not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out >exec package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running >ancient a.out binaries. Well, I still have a lisp from 0.9 :-) Anyway if we get rid of a.out we might as well get rid of compat <= 1.5... christos
RE: svr4, again
Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec >> package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient >> a.out binaries. >> > > NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. Here, too.
Re: svr4, again
On 20.12.2018 17:58, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > >> On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Terry Moore wrote: >> >> Kamil Rytarowski wrote: While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient a.out binaries. >>> >>> NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. >> >> Here, too. > > Well, then you have my sympathies, my admiration, and my curiosity all at the > same time! > > No, seriously, what ancient binaries are you running? (Ok, I admit, it's > pretty cool that it still works after all this time...) > > -- thorpej > https://github.com/krytarowski/franz-lisp-netbsd-0.9-i386 On the other hand unless we need it for bootloaders, drivers or something needed to run NetBSD, I'm for removal of srv3, sunos etc compat. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: svr4, again
> On Dec 20, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Terry Moore wrote: > > Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec >>> package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient >>> a.out binaries. >>> >> >> NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. > > Here, too. Well, then you have my sympathies, my admiration, and my curiosity all at the same time! No, seriously, what ancient binaries are you running? (Ok, I admit, it's pretty cool that it still works after all this time...) -- thorpej
Re: svr4, again
We're shipping binaries in the source tree to make this hold up. src/libexec/ld.aout_so/*.uue
Re: svr4, again
On 20.12.2018 17:03, Jason Thorpe wrote: > While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec > package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient > a.out binaries. > NetBSD 0.9 i386 a.out yes. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: svr4, again
While I agree that it’s not exactly difficult to maintain the a.out exec package, I do wonder if there is anyone out there actually running ancient a.out binaries. -- thorpej Sent from my iPhone. > On Dec 20, 2018, at 12:17 AM, David Holland wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:18:15PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: >>> i would argue that until we're willing to drop a.out exec >>> entirely we should keep the above. let's not chip and hack >>> around it. >> >> Fair point. Insert "should we get rid of a.out exec, too?" here :-) > > No... > > -- > David A. Holland > dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: svr4, again
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:18:15PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > i would argue that until we're willing to drop a.out exec > > entirely we should keep the above. let's not chip and hack > > around it. > > Fair point. Insert "should we get rid of a.out exec, too?" here :-) No... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: svr4, again
Le 20/12/2018 à 00:40, Warner Losh a écrit : On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:38 PM mailto:m...@netbsd.org>> wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:01:27AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > FreeBSD ditched SYSV maybe 2 years ago, but > we still have IBCS in the tree because people are still using it (last we > checked) and bug fixes / reports are still trickling in... > > Which is a long way of saying 'be careful' :) > > Warner That statement lasted all of a few hours. https://v4.freshbsd.org/commit/freebsd/src/342242 I had no idea this was going to happen so quickly... Warner In the end, do we need to be this careful? Note that our compat_ibcs2 isn't available on x86; it used to, until one or two years ago, when it was still enabled by default on i386. It was then removed, as part of the Great Cleanup following defcon. Today, compat_ibcs2 is really only for Vax.
Re: svr4, again
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:38 PM wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:01:27AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > FreeBSD ditched SYSV maybe 2 years ago, but > > we still have IBCS in the tree because people are still using it (last we > > checked) and bug fixes / reports are still trickling in... > > > > Which is a long way of saying 'be careful' :) > > > > Warner > > That statement lasted all of a few hours. > > https://v4.freshbsd.org/commit/freebsd/src/342242 I had no idea this was going to happen so quickly... Warner
