I am an amateur here and follow mostly to learn from you all, but I did like
some of the ideas in btrfs. Being able to add ssd’s for “cache” with spinning
disks for long term and the system manage moving the data between the two based
on use, auto repairs during use, data checks and
The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers appear to be
behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn’t want to use a newer c feature
other than compatibility?
Thanks,
Stephen
On Jan 10, 2019, at 4:27 AM, David Demelier wrote:
Le 27/12/2018 à 11:10, Silvan Jegen a
I do like the idea of the warning “this is not posix” or “this is a gnu’ism”.
It would be cool to have a suggested changes as well to possibly encourage
posix usage.
Do you know if there is a gnu make test to verify all features are included and
working? I’m currently looking for a gmake test
don’t have an alternative for or decide to continue to use anyways.
Also need it for the kernel.
I would also like to see the Linux kernel get a sanity check but fat chance
with that one!
Thanks,
Stephen
On Dec 30, 2018, at 12:30 PM, ra...@airmail.cc wrote:
> On 2018-12-30 01:32, stephen Tur
If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the recommended
approach?
I see in a slightly older 2012 release of the code entries for windows 32 and
amiga. I’m questioning why!
Would it be worth while to strip make of these items and then attempt to clean
the code section by
> On Dec 27, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> I am disappointed to see that clang compilation speeds are a lot slower
> than what they used to be. The disadvantage of tcc is that it does
> almost no optimisations, so even simple programs will run slower. My
> solution is to use tcc
> On Dec 25, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:16:47 -0600
> Cág wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of something you can compile the Linux kernel[0] with.
>
> The Linux kernel only compiles with the GNU toolchain. There are
> efforts to get it compiling with clang
> On Dec 25, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Cág wrote:
>
> Jan Bessai wrote:
>> Not sure if it has any advantages for you, but you might try bmake
>> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/bmake
>> It is a port of the Netbsd make.
>
> bmake has its own conditionals like .if, .ifdef, .else, etc.,
t; On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:43:42 -0500
> stephen Turner <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this was blocked by the mailing list, sorry if
>> its a duplicate. I wanted to mention that there is a m4
>> converted from a bsd rewrite of m4 into a more
used it for a while with pcc and haven't seen issues related
to m4. Perhaps this would be a helpful starting point for you.
http://haddonthethird.net/m4/
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, stephen Turner
<stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as m4 is concerned I happened to meet
while my mac experience is limited to only 1 year, i can say that
sticking to mavericks (10.9.5) and el capitan (10.11.6) have been
exceptionally stable. Some antivirus programs such as mcafee have been
known to corrupt files on the mac as was our issue previously but have
since switched to a
So i briefly viewed the svc scripts, it appears that you have for the
most part recreated daemon-tools in script form?
Perhaps i over looked it but it also appears to have omitted a auto
restart of the service. I assume this is by design and a good choice i
would think for a number of reasons. Is
I had no intention of starting a debate, just wanted a little
direction on where to place these few applications appropriate to
legacy linux/bsd. I understand its not the common view of the members
here, and I'm definitely not trying to say one way is more correct
than the other. Sta.Li has its
So i have determined the locations of most of sbase and ubase using
the linux FHS [0]. I have a few that needs categories for the legacy
style linux and was hoping someone would have a few pointers. I
offered my thoughts based on the FHS description of the directories,
correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks Alex. I have followed landley as well and he is pretty sharp
especially on history. He does make a valid point that we really don't
need the file system laid out the way it is, and i can see why people
would like to have it set up more simply like stali. I myself was
tempted with the
Thanks for all the great feedback!
I installed sbase and ubase but it doesn't appear that suckless
assigns them to the proper directories e.g. /bin /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin however everything is placed into /usr/local/bin. I assume
there was a thought or reason? Perhaps leaving it open for
label links and such so not very helpful in that
respect but at least i wont try to vi a directory or cd to a file.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Evan Gates <evan.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:34 PM, stephen Turner
> <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>&g
Background first. I'm running a simple kernel, busybox, make, pcc,
musl, binutils (patched for ash) environment. Its run from ram so i
can trash the environment as many times as i care to reboot. That
being said I decided to install suckless in place allowing it to
overwrite the busybox links just
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Hannes Blut <cxb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22.09.16 at 03:42pm, stephen Turner wrote:
>>
>> I liked the old debian floppy net install, 75 mb base cli only image.
>> apt get your way to happiness. It didn't fit with the suckless as they
&
whats the suckless view of containers and why? what about a
containerized init helper where sinit calls the container program and
then runs daemons and the rest of the system from containers? Do you
feel containers offer additional security/stability?
Just thinking about "cloud" stuff again and
I liked the old debian floppy net install, 75 mb base cli only image.
apt get your way to happiness. It didn't fit with the suckless as they
did a lot to their system but it wasn't ubuntu. These days you can't
even install a Cli for less than 100+ mb. i really don't understand
what they are
This is a bit off topic and i wanted to avoid thread jacking another
conversation.
I see people here are using slackware, i was considering a script
package management system that allows for easy modifications for a
"micro distribution" the idea was to not host any of the actual source
but do
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Ivan Tham <pickf...@riseup.net> 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
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400
> stephen Turner <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen,
>
>> On your site i see you have tested compiling your system with PCC
>> and i also se
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
