Is it ok to post questions about acme-sac on 9fans, or is there some other
place that would be more appropriate? I just disovered acme-sac for Windows,
and I'm trying to figure out how to customize some of the startup behavrior.
thanks,
Peter Canning
There's an Inferno for the discussion of all aspects of Inferno and Limbo
(which would include acme-sac because it's built on that).
To subscribe to that list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
including the word "subscribe" in the subject or body of the message.
There is, however, acme-sac sp
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080314 08:24]:
> Is it ok to post questions about acme-sac on 9fans, or is there some other
> place that would be more appropriate? I just disovered acme-sac for Windows,
> and I'm trying to figure out how to customize some of the startup behavrior.
Well
> I'm asking mainly because of Plan 9, a UNIX-like OS with a C compiler
> (but no C++) to which the freetype library has been ported. There's
> an old port of TeX that doesn't work too well anymore, so there's been
> some talk about porting a modern TeX. (LuaTeX requires C++ for the
> PDF library
> I'm asking mainly because of Plan 9, a UNIX-like OS with a C compiler
> (but no C++) to which the freetype library has been ported. There's
> an old port of TeX that doesn't work too well anymore, so there's been
> some talk about porting a modern TeX.
don't waste your time unless there is some
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:28 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what do you mean "doesn't work too well anymore"? i haven't noticed anything
> going broken.
But lucio has had trouble.
I guess I overstated the case a bit.
--Joel
Dear List,
I am currently having strange problems with my ndb/dns resolver.
cpu% ndb/dnsquery
can't open /net: '/net' dns: permission denied
cpu% ls -l /net
[...]
--rw-rw-rw- M 24238 ckeen ckeen0 Mar 14 15:44 /net/cs
--rw-rw-rw- M 24240 ckeen ckeen0 Mar 14 15:44 /net/dns
[...]
cpu% ndb
> Dear List,
>
> I am currently having strange problems with my ndb/dns resolver.
> cpu% ndb/dnsquery
> can't open /net: '/net' dns: permission denied
> cpu% ls -l /net
> [...]
> --rw-rw-rw- M 24238 ckeen ckeen0 Mar 14 15:44 /net/cs
> --rw-rw-rw- M 24240 ckeen ckeen0 Mar 14 15:44 /net/
* erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080314 16:26]:
>
> as a matter of fact, i just stumbled on part of your problem this morning.
> you need to be the hostowner to start dns.
>
> as to the permission denied problem, did you have a running resolver
> before you tried to start one?
This is not a
> This is not as reproducible as I thought. I just opened another
> window and ran ndb/dnsquery and it works now. Could this be due to
> temporary dns failure problems?
do you have any other broken dns, other than the one you started?
- erik
Well, finally, I have been able to use this thing for a whole
day^H^H^H testing period without seeing it crash or corrupt one of my
files.
At http://lsub.org/ls/octopus.html you may find links to omero.src.tgz
and to omero.dis.tgz Also at /n/sources/contrib/nemo/octopus
There are man pages includ
* erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080314 17:01]:
> > This is not as reproducible as I thought. I just opened another
> > window and ran ndb/dnsquery and it works now. Could this be due to
> > temporary dns failure problems?
>
> do you have any other broken dns, other than the one you started?
> But lucio has had trouble.
>
That's because I am totally unfamiliar with TeX.
> I guess I overstated the case a bit.
Sorry to have put you in the firing line.
++L
9fans,
in 2007's gsoc I started writing o9fs, a 9p-capable virtual filesystem
for openbsd.
first I used conv* and some other pieces from Plan 9; them I decided
to rewrite based on libixp because of possible licensing problems
between LPL code and openbsd's.
now I've reread LPL and it got me thinki
is there anything that breaks if we take an adhoc approach to ignoring
standards? who needs URLs anyway if you are too lazy for them. you are
not too lazy to complain.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hola,
> >
> > "http://9fans.net"; is an URL, "9fan
> can I relicense LPL code to, say, the ISC license?
No. Just like you can't relicense GPL'ed code to ISC,
because the ISC license does not contain all the same
restrictions that the LPL (or GPL) does.
However, the u9fs source is available under
a license which is essentially equivalent to the
I
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > can I relicense LPL code to, say, the ISC license?
>
> No. Just like you can't relicense GPL'ed code to ISC,
> because the ISC license does not contain all the same
> restrictions that the LPL (or GPL) does.
>
> However,
> is there anything that breaks if we take an adhoc approach to ignoring
> standards? who needs URLs anyway if you are too lazy for them. you are
> not too lazy to complain.
i don't see how providing code & and argument for the code
is complaining. i didn't bring this subject up.
as i see it, co
> No. Just like you can't relicense GPL'ed code to ISC,
> because the ISC license does not contain all the same
> restrictions that the LPL (or GPL) does.
I'm sure I heard recently (on a NetBSD mailing list) that something
*PL was re-released with a *BSD licence? Surely as the owner of the
code,
19 matches
Mail list logo
