[RFC] Taking over dev86

[RFC] Taking over dev86

[Jody Bruchon]

 From my perspective, it appears that lkundrak on Github has abandoned 
dev86; there hasn't been a commit or a code pull request accepted to 
that repo in nearly two years and lkundrak is not participating in any 
issue reports or pull request discussions either. I am considering 
converting my Github fork of dev86 into a normal repository and 
considering my repository to be the official one for the dev86 project.

Does anyone see any reason that I shouldn't perform this "hostile 
takeover" of dev86? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

-Jody

Re: [RFC] Taking over dev86

[Marc-François LUCCA-DANIAU]

No, sorry, Seabios does not depend on dev86.
That is actually vgabios, also used by QEMU.

MFLD


2017-02-24 22:59 GMT+01:00 Marc-François LUCCA-DANIAU <mfld.fr@gmail.com>:
> Has lkundrak also stopped to respond to direct mail ?
>
> Today his repository looks the one that is referenced as the master in
> some distributions, at least in their respective build systems. So
> this takeover should be advertised to their respective maintainers
> through their ticket systems.
>
> It also seems to me that some projects still use dev86 in addition to
> ELKS, like the coreboot / Seabios, so indirectly some important others
> like QEMU... therefore I would not takeover without discuting a bit
> with that teams.
>
> MFLD
>
>
> 2017-02-24 22:36 GMT+01:00 Jody Bruchon <jody@jodybruchon.com>:
>> From my perspective, it appears that lkundrak on Github has abandoned dev86;
>> there hasn't been a commit or a code pull request accepted to that repo in
>> nearly two years and lkundrak is not participating in any issue reports or
>> pull request discussions either. I am considering converting my Github fork
>> of dev86 into a normal repository and considering my repository to be the
>> official one for the dev86 project.
>>
>> Does anyone see any reason that I shouldn't perform this "hostile takeover"
>> of dev86? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.
>>
>> -Jody
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-8086" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC] Taking over dev86

[Georg Potthast 2]

bcc is part of the repo of most major Linux distributions. I would suggest to contact the maintainers of the packages in these repos to see which code base they use to generate the packages and what their comments are regarding this plan.

Using an optimising compiler to compile the ELKS kernel would probably cut its size in half. So selecting a different compiler for ELKS would make sense.

Georg

> Marc-François LUCCA-DANIAU <mfld.fr@gmail.com> hat am 24. Februar 2017 um 23:05 geschrieben:
> 
> 
> No, sorry, Seabios does not depend on dev86.
> That is actually vgabios, also used by QEMU.
> 
> MFLD
> 
> 
> 2017-02-24 22:59 GMT+01:00 Marc-François LUCCA-DANIAU <mfld.fr@gmail.com>:
> > Has lkundrak also stopped to respond to direct mail ?
> >
> > Today his repository looks the one that is referenced as the master in
> > some distributions, at least in their respective build systems. So
> > this takeover should be advertised to their respective maintainers
> > through their ticket systems.
> >
> > It also seems to me that some projects still use dev86 in addition to
> > ELKS, like the coreboot / Seabios, so indirectly some important others
> > like QEMU... therefore I would not takeover without discuting a bit
> > with that teams.
> >
> > MFLD
> >
> >
> > 2017-02-24 22:36 GMT+01:00 Jody Bruchon <jody@jodybruchon.com>:
> >> From my perspective, it appears that lkundrak on Github has abandoned dev86;
> >> there hasn't been a commit or a code pull request accepted to that repo in
> >> nearly two years and lkundrak is not participating in any issue reports or
> >> pull request discussions either. I am considering converting my Github fork
> >> of dev86 into a normal repository and considering my repository to be the
> >> official one for the dev86 project.
> >>
> >> Does anyone see any reason that I shouldn't perform this "hostile takeover"
> >> of dev86? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.
> >>
> >> -Jody
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-8086" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-8086" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC] Taking over dev86

[David Given]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

On 25/02/17 13:21, Georg Potthast 2 wrote:
> bcc is part of the repo of most major Linux distributions. I would suggest to contact the maintainers of the packages in these repos to see which code base they use to generate the packages and what their comments are regarding this plan.
> 
> Using an optimising compiler to compile the ELKS kernel would probably cut its size in half. So selecting a different compiler for ELKS would make sense.

pc86 support on the ACK has been beaten into shape and now produces
binaries which actually run, if anyone's interested. Out of the box it
produces tiny mode executables which can be dd'd to a floppy disk and
run (I've just tested it to make sure!). And it supports ANSI C89 natively.

The bad news is that it doesn't play with other toolchains, having its
own proprietary object file format. This would require any assembly
files to be translated to the ACK's rather peculiar syntax.

Alternatively, in the land of compilers written after 1980, wasn't Alan
Cox working on a i86 pcc port?

-- 
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "There is nothing in the world so dangerous --- and I mean *nothing*
│ --- as a children's story that happens to be true." --- Master Li Kao,
│ _The Bridge of Birds_


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [RFC] Taking over dev86

[Alan Cox]

> Alternatively, in the land of compilers written after 1980, wasn't Alan
> Cox working on a i86 pcc port?

It got as far as generating valid 16bit 386 code. The additional limits
for indirect accesses need adding which turns out to be quite fiddly so
I've simply not had time to do it.

Alan