Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

[Pietro Gagliardi]

Out of curiosity, what hardware do you need to get working?

On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

I'm not sure that "project fork" is a best way. Because hardware
problem is a little piece of work and it's lays it separate module.
The biggest part of application is a some computations and some
algorithms implementation...As far, as application was port in many
different Linux platforms, it's almost impossible to find some
function with out #ifdef :))

Ok, any way, it looks like "project fork" is simplest way to do port,
so any other ways    is not very interesting. I think that this way is
most correct, because in that case i could redesign many parts of this
application in "plan9 style", do some soft services like, files for
example  :)

Thanks to all for your help :)

2008/2/3, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

You need to do direct hardware manipulation? Then "project fork" is
probably best.

On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

Heh, i try to "port" my program, and it's really not possible in my
point of view :)

Actually, i don't have working Plan9 right now, reason is quite
simple, on my hardware plan9 does do not work (PC emulators couldn't

help because my program should work with some special hardware), so i

try to create PC  from "supported hardware" list, but it take some
time to get all pieces, put they together, install, configure plan9
and so on ))

Ok, i have no Plan9, but i have my application that i want to port,

so i try to remove all autotools macros from it and try to do some
preparations, like new abstraction layer for threads creation...and
i'm completely failed, just because too much autotools stuff in
sources. And it too complicated to figure out what exactly i should
remove in every case...

And my application much smaller that mesa for example. Or X11 (by the

way, how X11 was ported?), and i do not touсh such problems like
different library, kernel interfaces and so, and so...

So it looks like "project fork" is only way :(

2008/2/3, Paweł Lasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On Feb 3, 2008 2:55 AM, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Circular cause and consequence is funny. Let me add to this list:
- jpg
- png
- tiff
- PostScript
- TeX (tpic)
- HTML
- Mahjongg, sokoban, sudoku, tetris (games/4s)
- SPARC, MIPS, x64
- MP3, PCM, OGG (PAC was made at Bell Labs)
- SoundBlaster 16

Let me put it this way:
        GNU software is good, except for GNU development tools,
which,
except for the gcc program itself, are mediocre and break
compatibility (try using a Bell Labs makefile with GNU make).

I'd add to it the fact that autotools source files are hard to
make, so
many people who are to lazy to do it properly just put the famous
(in)sanity check and checks for libs they use. The effect?

A simple C program that doesn't rely on anything except for
example libpng

will check for C, C++, FORTRAN 77 compilers, check if those are from

GCC and various other things.

Imagine my surprise when I had seen a configure script (for EmacsLisp

utility) that only checked for Emacs version
and few EmacsLisp files it used - a rare thing IMHO, when >80% of
configure running time is for checking for not used
software.

"CPU cycles are cheap, programmer time is expensive" <--- This
doesn't
mean that total laziness is appropriate.

The best thing about autotools is I think the scheme of running

configure - AFAIK mplayer doesn't even use configure for it's script,

instead

they use their own, which looks the same to end user. And saves a lot

of time :-)

--
Paul Lasek