[9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz

[9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz

[boyd, rounin]

the Makefile is just bust.  this is what it should look like:

all:
        for i in libutf libfmt libbio libregexp mk ; \
        do \
                (cd $$i; make) ; \
        done
        ls -l mk/mk

--
MGRS 31U DQ 52572 12604

Re: [9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz

[Russ Cox]

thanks.


On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:46:13 +0100, boyd, rounin <boyd@insultant.net> wrote:
> the Makefile is just bust.  this is what it should look like:
> 
> all:
>         for i in libutf libfmt libbio libregexp mk ; \
>         do \
>                 (cd $$i; make) ; \
>         done
>         ls -l mk/mk
> 
> --
> MGRS 31U DQ 52572 12604
> 
>

RE: [9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz

[Ronald G. Minnich]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Benjamin Huntsman wrote:

> so what's more current these days- plan9port or actual Plan 9?  Last I
> heard, plan9port's Venti was more functional than the real Plan 9
> variety...

goodness. We have to backport from 9ports to Plan 9? 

ron

RE: [9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz

[Benjamin Huntsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

so what's more current these days- plan9port or actual Plan 9?  Last I heard, plan9port's Venti was more functional than the real Plan 9 variety...
 
-Ben
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Russ Cox [mailto:russcox@gmail.com] 
	Sent: Thu 1/13/2005 6:15 PM 
	To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [9fans] http://swtch.com/plan9port/mk-all-20040301.tgz
	
	

	thanks.
	
	
	On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:46:13 +0100, boyd, rounin <boyd@insultant.net> wrote:
	> the Makefile is just bust.  this is what it should look like:
	>
	> all:
	>         for i in libutf libfmt libbio libregexp mk ; \
	>         do \
	>                 (cd $$i; make) ; \
	>         done
	>         ls -l mk/mk
	>
	> --
	> MGRS 31U DQ 52572 12604
	>
	>
	


[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 292 bytes --]

from postmaster@ethel:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
	name="winmail.dat"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

[-- Attachment #2.2: winmail.dat.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 4622 bytes --]