Re: [dev] several questions

From: stephen Turner <>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:40:15 -0400

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 reliance on lex, yacc and m4?
> The last PCC release (1.1.0) was in 2014. Of course, this does not mean
> much, but it does not receive any major attention as of late.
> Additionally, and I can't speak for Roberto here, the goals of scc go
> in a different direction. Stay tuned for Roberto's talk at slcon3.

They are not cutting regular releases but the CVS is getting updates.
They also have it time stamp every day with a tarball release so its
kinda hard to track when they actually do work if your not on the
mailing list.

>> 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 net or considered a bash rewrite? I see you recommend
>> mksh and dash but neither have bashisms that some projects seem to
>> expect.
> Just don't use bash, but the Posix shell. Use the "#!/bin/sh"shebang
> and test your scripts with shellcheck[0], which is also pretty reliable
> in detecting bashisms.
> Some people would recommend rc (by Plan9), but it's definitely not
> portable and most unixoid OSes offer it.
> For make: Some people recommend mk, I'd recommend just being aware of
> GNUisms for make and try to make it portable (it's not difficult).

I try to keep my scripts pretty generic as i tend to use them on
multiple platforms, linux and os x mostly. i also specify sh :)

>> I found libre linux where they clean out the "globs" and tiny linux
>> but i was wondering if there was a new linux kernel cleanup project
>> somewhere?
> I'm sure you mean "BLOBs", which are binary chunks of proprietary
> machine code. To be honest, I don't mind that running in my system,
> however, in the long run one should try to select hardware that is not
> requiring BLOBs in the first place (Broadcom is a sinner in this
> regard). All this "Libre" bullshit with projects to "clean up" the
> Linux kernel don't achieve anything beyond ideological satisfaction.
> Stop singing the false song of "Libre Software" and rather make smart
> decisions in life.
> If you end up configuring your Kernel yourself and remove everything
> you don't need in the first place (including all drivers with BLOBs),
> your compilate won't contain BLOBs as well.

I haven't used libre linux yet. Seems like a bit of a hassle honestly
but i like the idea. For me the appeal is just having everything in
code like it should be and being open for audit or improvement.

> With best regards
> [0]:
> --
> FRIGN <>
Received on Wed Sep 21 2016 - 17:40:15 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Sep 21 2016 - 17:48:12 CEST