From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <47b13c90345a68e5f6ff2eebc649c25c@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports
From: C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com>
In-Reply-To: <406D7906.3030701@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri,  2 Apr 2004 15:53:04 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4f1551ce-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

it's not unreasonably hard to write a mkfile that chooses between
rules in sh syntax and rules in rc syntax based on a single parameter
for the installation.  it's a nuisance having to do it, but it does work reasonably well,
and can be made easier to do by judicious use of `<' in the mkfiles.
with some care (eg, with respect to choice of quoting rules) most
rules that don't include loops can be the same for rc and sh.

i maintain several packages across Plan 9 (rc), Unix (sh) and Windows (rcsh.exe) that way.
it seems easier than having to have several files with similar contents but different names.