On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:05:50PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > I will soon compile a recent linux kernel (with that c++ garbage which is
> > gcc
> > unfortunately) for x86_64/x86 and see if that kbluid was damaged again.
>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> I will soon compile a recent linux kernel (with that c++ garbage which is gcc
> unfortunately) for x86_64/x86 and see if that kbluid was damaged again.
It seems it was damaged again: New scripts, new bash-isms. Wonder who did thos
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:45:00AM -0400, stephen Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:32:18PM -0400, stephen Turner wrote:
> >> currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux
> >> kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the
Last tim
On 21 September 2016 at 16:45, Evan Gates wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM, FRIGN wrote:
>> Of course, given there is only one implementation, it is highly
>> portable per-se, given the interpretation is equal everywhere and 9base
>> is quite easily portable.
>
> Sadly there are two impl
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Ivan Tham 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 it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux
>> kernel.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:44 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400
> stephen Turner wrote:
>
> Hey Stephen,
>
>> 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 reli
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Evan Gates wrote:
> Sadly there are two implementations.
Yes, you're right. We already had this conversation about the two rc's
[1] [2] and the consensus on this list is to prefer the Plan 9 version.
So I meant the Plan 9 version in my previous messages. It is
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:02 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> Of course, given there is only one implementation, it is highly
> portable per-se, given the interpretation is equal everywhere and 9base
> is quite easily portable.
Sadly there are two implementations. This rc[0] claims to be a
reimplementation fo
He answered your reply on G+.
https://plus.google.com/+AlanCoxLinux/posts/a2jAP7Pz1gj
> Having looked deeper I think the suckless code is too buggy
Sad :(
Should Alan Cox be added to this mailing list thread as CC for more discussion,
details about the bugs he found and (who knows) solutions?
stephen Turner wrote:
Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these.
mksh can be used as #!/bin/sh and has more features than dash
for a convenient everyday use.
For make there's bmake[0], NetBSD make ported to Linux.
Cág
[0]: http://www.crufty.net/help/sjg/bmake.html
I went ahead and relayed projects you mentioned. :-)
cheers!
mar77i
> was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project somewhere?
Alan Cox started work on this at 2014 and keeps developing the project until
today.
His announcement on 2014 -
https://plus.google.com/+AlanCoxLinux/posts/a2jAP7Pz1gj
The code last updated 5 days ago - https://github.co
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 it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux
kernel. Is there any suitable projects that you may have seen around the
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:04:05 -0400
Greg Reagle wrote:
Hey Greg,
> Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not
> portable"? It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like
> operating systems and that it is highly portable.
the thing is that 99.9% of people on Linux o
On 21 September 2016 at 04:04, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote:
>> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not
>> portable
>
> Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"?
> It is my understanding that it works o
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 04:44 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not
> portable
Would you mind explaining specifically what you mean by "not portable"?
It is my understanding that it works on a lot of Unix-like operating
systems and that it is highl
> Hi, its my first post so i hope I'm not on the wrong group here or being
> rude.
Nope, dev is exactly right for that.
> Bash and Make, I'm looking for compatible replacements for these. As i
> currently understand it bash at the least is expected to compile the linux
> kernel. Is there any
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:32:18 -0400
stephen Turner wrote:
Hey Stephen,
> 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?
The last PCC release (1.1.0) wa
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 lookin
19 matches
Mail list logo