From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <429e07ff8e062d011b23e85afa14e5be@gmx.de> To: lucio@proxima.alt.za, 9fans@9fans.net From: "Sascha Retzki" Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:53:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <95ce6dc00772bfff769c1e63693feea9@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e461e366-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Thing is, It's autoconf that needs careful > redesign: The question is, why should I care about that all? I have mk(1) and I really don't need more to build software on Plan9 (rc, awk/sed, etc. come in handy). You seem to insist on alien software, why is porting software from lunix a prefered solution? Most of the solutions are a.) either to problems we don't even have or b.) so awkward in interfacing you just end up writing a native fork anyway. Another interesting quesiton is: Should we have the ability to port alien software to Plan9, from an ethical point of view? I personally would feel better if APE was in extra/ (and has it's own mailinglist and contrib/). > even though contrib/replica is not as comprehensive as a > revision control even when backed by venti, it is unmatched for Plan 9 > purposes. parse error. What are unmatched Plan9 purposes? And what has autoconf to do with contrib and replica?