On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 22:58 -0500, Paul C Lustgarten wrote: > naïve folks to be sure to use the harder-to-read-but-more-current man pages > on our local installation in preference to the tempting gee-they're- > live-from-the-source-so-they-must-be-the-latest-and-they're-so-easy- > to-read-in-my-browser-thanks! man pages that are served on the web? see wm/man
Hi, The one from http://caerwyn.com/acme/ is great. Thanks Caerwyn. I found it takes long long time to fire up it though. Is that only me seeing this? I have to disk/ext the arch file to a dir, so that it won't need to run archfs each time. I also have to rename /usr/inferno to my own username, so that it won't runas inferno. By doing this, Now it can run instantly. Cheers, Howard * www.swanhigh.com * Inferno Introduction in Chinese *
> The one from http://caerwyn.com/acme/ is great. Thanks Caerwyn. Hear, Hear! All I was expecting was maybe emu.exe + acme.dis or so, not so much as we get now. > I found it takes long long time to fire up it though. > Is that only me seeing this? For me it definitely does not run instantly, but neither does it take an extremely long time to start. I'm sorry to change topic here, but: Now that I've seen this I can rephrase my question about deployment (I asked a while ago). I guess my question is about granularity: can I package indivual end-user applications in separate self-contained packages, and still let them cooperate when they are run concurrently? Suppose that, next to acme, I also want to package charon in the same way. And then I start acme, and I start charon, and I get two instances of emu (I guess). Is it then possible to plumb http refs from acme to charon? Where would my plumber be, in the acme emu or the charon emu, or would I have two plumbers that 'know' each other? Can I configure the plumber that runs in the 'acme' emu such that, when no charon is running, it will start the(Continue reading)
Hi, I would like to have a minimal Inferno (w/o GUI) runs on a network module. This one http://www.netburner.com/products/core_modules/mod5270.html uses Freescale coldfire 5270 MCU, which should already have been supported by 2c. But it only has 512K Flash and 2MB SDRAM. Is that enough to run a Inferno kernel with network, Dis, httpd, and some simple applications? thanks, Howard
The mk that comes with Inferno "fails to fail" when building Inferno sources on my Intel Mac on Mac OS X. The mk in Plan 9 from User Space doesn't appear to have this problem. Does anyone know of any specific differences between the two? I wonder if I could use P9P's mk to help me get through my recompile of Inferno for Mactels. Dave
On 4/10/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k <at> gmail.com> wrote: > The mk that comes with Inferno "fails to fail" when building Inferno > sources on my Intel Mac on Mac OS X. The mk in Plan 9 from User Space > doesn't appear to have this problem. I should be more clear here obviously... When the compilation fails mk from Inferno keeps on trucking instead of dying. This doesn't happen with P9P mk. In fact, P9P on Intel Macs doesn't work right now it seems. > > Does anyone know of any specific differences between the two? > > I wonder if I could use P9P's mk to help me get through my recompile > of Inferno for Mactels. > > Dave >
> The mk that comes with Inferno "fails to fail" when building Inferno > sources on my Intel Mac on Mac OS X. The mk in Plan 9 from User Space > doesn't appear to have this problem. i'm fairly sure now that it's a difference between bash and other sh in handling -e, that being the main environmental difference between systems on which a little test mkfile fails (sh is bash) and those on which it works (sh is not bash, as on FreeBSD).
> The mk that comes with Inferno "fails to fail" when building Inferno > sources on my Intel Mac on Mac OS X. The mk in Plan 9 from User Space > doesn't appear to have this problem. i'm fairly sure now that it's a difference between bash and other sh in handling -e, that being the main environmental difference between systems on which a little test mkfile fails (sh is bash) and those on which it works (sh is not bash, as on FreeBSD).
> i'm fairly sure now that it's a difference between bash and other sh in handling -e, i'm certain: (command-list) doesn't cause bash to exit if the list returns an error (even though the subsequent $? is indeed non-zero). still, i see that bash has a great many pages of other things to do.
> i'm fairly sure now that it's a difference between bash and other sh in handling -e, i'm certain: (command-list) doesn't cause bash to exit if the list returns an error (even though the subsequent $? is indeed non-zero). still, i see that bash has a great many pages of other things to do.
RSS Feed7 | |
|---|---|
6 | |
24 | |
22 | |
14 | |
9 | |
10 | |
4 | |
23 | |
15 | |
1 | |
4 | |
23 | |
8 | |
2 | |
1 | |
43 | |
38 | |
12 | |
24 | |
5 | |
1 | |
2 | |
23 | |
23 | |
27 | |
13 | |
6 | |
56 | |
14 | |
13 | |
5 | |
16 | |
17 | |
15 | |
22 | |
21 | |
36 | |
24 | |
50 | |
43 | |
43 | |
55 | |
72 | |
38 | |
65 | |
73 | |
36 | |
51 | |
41 | |
116 | |
20 | |
38 | |
15 | |
36 | |
59 | |
32 | |
29 | |
55 | |
78 | |
57 | |
54 | |
48 | |
49 | |
109 | |
63 | |
104 | |
213 | |
74 | |
85 | |
36 | |
62 | |
48 | |
85 | |
308 | |
151 | |
72 | |
30 | |
8 | |
72 | |
57 | |
72 | |
37 | |
19 | |
42 | |
63 | |
141 | |
63 | |
70 | |
119 | |
98 | |
19 | |
122 | |
58 | |
19 | |
66 | |
51 | |
133 | |
38 | |
59 | |
46 | |
21 | |
30 | |
72 | |
36 | |
73 | |
60 | |
140 | |
165 | |
180 |
