[9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
What the subject line says. This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for another. So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? Go in peace James V Choate XXXVI
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. Chris > On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: > > What the subject line says. > > This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys > who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d > like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command > line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under > Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew > IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) > > But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be > dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for > another. > > So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific > stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? > > Go in peace > James V Choate XXXVI > > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Hey Chris Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. > > Chris > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: >> >> What the subject line says. >> >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the guys >> who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p that I’d >> like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the command >> line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build under >> Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to eschew >> IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax highlighting))) >> >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be >> dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp for >> another. >> >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific >> stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? >> >> Go in peace >> James V Choate XXXVI >> >> >> > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use? On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo wrote: > Hey Chris > > Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used > mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to > the native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. > > I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like > Microsoft development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a > minority taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks > installing 3rd party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > > > > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. > > > > Chris > > > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: > >> > >> What the subject line says. > >> > >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the > guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p > that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly the > command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to build > under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and learn to > eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use syntax > highlighting))) > >> > >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be > dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp > for another. > >> > >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the > Unix-specific stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? > >> > >> Go in peace > >> James V Choate XXXVI > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
I'd use whichever version is the latest free one. VS2015 community edition is the one I use, but MS are still pretty good about backward compatibility, so any previous version should do. > On 28/07/2016, at 5:09 PM, Joseph Stewart wrote: > > Which version of MS Visual Studio would you use? > >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Winston Kodogo wrote: >> Hey Chris >> >> Cygwin is an option. Albeit one I wouldn’t use. The guys who did pf9 used >> mingw. Which I also wouldn’t use. I like MS Visual Studio with access to the >> native libraries on the platform of my choice - so colour me bigoted. >> >> I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft >> development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority >> taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd >> party tools and then being told how stupid they are. >> > On 28/07/2016, at 1:27 PM, Chris McGee wrote: >> > >> > I was thinking of using Cygwin to see would be capable of compiling p9p. >> > >> > Chris >> > >> >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Andrew Simmons wrote: >> >> >> >> What the subject line says. >> >> >> >> This is not remotely intended to disrespect Sean Quinlan’s 9pm, or the >> >> guys who did pf9. I’m just asking because there are still chunks of p9p >> >> that I’d like to have under Windows. Some of the chunks I want (mostly >> >> the command line utilities, also sam, not so much acme) I’ve managed to >> >> build under Microsoft Visual Studio (note to self - wash mouth out and >> >> learn to eschew IDEs and love mk ((also, sub-note to self, don’t use >> >> syntax highlighting))) >> >> >> >> But, and this is a large but, there are parts of p9port that seem to be >> >> dependent on the Unix world - unix pipes for one, the stuff about sigjmp >> >> for another. >> >> >> >> So, what the subject line says, but also - how much of the Unix-specific >> >> stuff in the current p9p is essential to a port to Windows? >> >> >> >> Go in peace >> >> James V Choate XXXVI >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
just use drawterm on windows and connect to some 9front instance (for example inside vmware, on the same machine). i don't think the alternative is worth it.
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 01:41:43PM +1200, Winston Kodogo wrote: > I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft > development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority taste > in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd party > tools and then being told how stupid they are. If I bought Microsoft development tools, I'd at least expect to be told how stupid I am in a timely manner.
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
I have a different approach. Personally I have only command line utilities as I keep Plan9 as my desktop (raspberry PI). I need to cross compile on windows so I have a tool to cpu into a windows box (called dos). This allows me to have a rio window onto a a dos shell. It does the trick like cpu(1) to allow me to hop from a plan9 rc(1) session (in a cifs mounted directory on the windows box), into an rc(1) session on windows and arrive at the same directory. I use 'local 9fs billy' at startup to make sure sam, rio, and all windows can see my windows box, thus plumb on windows "just works" to edit files. e.g. My windows box is called billy (after mr gates) and my plan9 one is custard (nice with raspberry pies). custard% custard% cat /dev/osversion ; echo 2000 custard% pwd /n/billy/c/New/Application custard% dos billy% mswin/osversion Windows 7 billy% pwd c:/New/Application billy% billy% make mingw32-make -s - -C Debug Application.elf billy% I could port gmake and the gcc cross compiler to plan9 to do this but there would always be bits missing and I need to be sure that what I check in can be built by other people working on windows. It compiles under mingw32 - I started a mingw64 version but never finished the work (sorry). The port predates 9pf, I would probably have used that if I had existed. It also contains none of the graphics code that 9pf has, so no native windows sam; though I have no need of it in my environment. This is all available if anyone wants it. -Steve
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
And even though they’re free, you’d presumably say that the price is still too high. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 9:15 PM, Staven wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 01:41:43PM +1200, Winston Kodogo wrote: >> I was kind of wondering if there was an option for people who like Microsoft >> development tools to build Plan9 tools, which are admittedly a minority >> taste in the Windows world, without spending several weeks installing 3rd >> party tools and then being told how stupid they are. > > If I bought Microsoft development tools, I'd at least expect to be told > how stupid I am in a timely manner. > >
Re: [9fans] Any demand for a supported Windows version of p9port?
Steve, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your solution wouldn’t work for me, but it obviously does for you, so go in peace. And the answer to the question in my subject line is obviously “No”. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:49 PM, Steve Simon wrote: > > I have a different approach. > > Personally I have only command line utilities as I keep Plan9 as my desktop > (raspberry PI). > > I need to cross compile on windows so I have a tool to cpu into a windows box > (called dos). > This allows me to have a rio window onto a a dos shell. > > It does the trick like cpu(1) to allow me to hop from a plan9 rc(1) session > (in a cifs > mounted directory on the windows box), into an rc(1) session on windows and > arrive at the same > directory. > > I use 'local 9fs billy' at startup to make sure sam, rio, and all windows can > see my windows box, > thus plumb on windows "just works" to edit files. > > e.g. > > My windows box is called billy (after mr gates) and my plan9 one is custard > (nice with raspberry pies). > > custard% > custard% cat /dev/osversion ; echo > 2000 > custard% pwd > /n/billy/c/New/Application > custard% dos > billy% mswin/osversion > Windows 7 > billy% pwd > c:/New/Application > billy% > billy% make > mingw32-make -s - -C Debug Application.elf > billy% > > I could port gmake and the gcc cross compiler to plan9 to do this but there > would always be > bits missing and I need to be sure that what I check in can be built by other > people working > on windows. > > It compiles under mingw32 - I started a mingw64 version but never finished > the work (sorry). > The port predates 9pf, I would probably have used that if I had existed. It > also contains none > of the graphics code that 9pf has, so no native windows sam; though I have no > need of it in my > environment. > > This is all available if anyone wants it. > > -Steve >
