By the way, silly question, but what would it take to have the kencc port accepted as part of p9p?
And a port of of plan9's awk (trivial to do)? It would be nice to be able to rely on a decent utf-8 enabled awk when writing scripts for p9p without worrying about what broken awk does this or that *nix have installed. uriel On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to cross-compile why don't you use Plan 9? or at least the > port of the plan9 compilers to lunix[1], where cross compiling is the > only way to compile. > > Cross-compiling in Gnu/land is a nightmare not worth going into. > > uriel > > [1] http://gsoc.cat-v.org/projects/kencc/ > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> Ask yourself whether you're doing this because it would >>> actually make your life easier or because of some >> >> It *does* make my life easier! >> >> I'm not just using it for personal stuff, but for lots of highly >> customized production systems, where careful maintenance is >> very important. >> >> Disk space is not the issue, but the amount of code to be >> maintained (source and binary). So the target systems *always* >> should only contain exactly what's needed - nothing more. >> >>> pre-conceived notion that software packaging should be complex. >> >> Actually, I want to make it simpler. You probably can't see this >> since you don't know what happens behind the scenes at my site ;-P >> >> One essential constraint is, that everything's built through an >> sysroot'ed cross-toolchain. Right after compile several checks >> run on the output, packages are then trimmed-down (eg. removing >> all build-time stuff) and then it goes to the testing system. >> Only after the whole pipe ran through properly, the binary >> package is committed to the production systems. >> >>> There's no need to fiddle with the build structure: >>> you could still require the whole tree to build things >>> and then just split up the post-build tree. >> >> The current approach already fails with crosscompiling. >> I *can not* use the in-tree built mk for further building >> and I *must* make sure that imports are strictly coming >> from within sysroot. >> >>> Then you don't have to worry about rewriting Makefiles >>> or adding your own configure scripts or other horrors. >>> I certainly won't take any of that back into the main tree. >> >> You shouldn't generally declare this approach as horror, >> just because autoconf is a horrible example. >> >> >> cu >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ >> >> cellphone: +49 174 7066481 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: nekrad666 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >
