From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6c4047deda8f6556c4f68b34b8f78dd6@proxima.alt.za> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: Lucio De Re Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:39:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Building Go on Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4a95f0ea-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> There's nothing wrong with mk. It's just that >> I highly doubt we could get a separate set of >> mkfiles included in the Go distribution. > > Have you tried? It's a non-invasive change, and once they are set up it's > unlikely they will need to be updated often. I think Anthony is on the right path on this point, in that I've had to update a couple of mkfiles in the recent past because I had overlooked changes to the coresponding Makefiles. Not many, but they do trigger additional maintenance problems. The only alternative option I would pick is to merge the Go release into the Plan 9 (and nix) distribution - mkfiles and all - then use a mechanism analogous to mine to keep them in sync. The unsuspecting public would never see the hard backroom effort. In my fantasies, I see p9p as a stepping stone in that direction. Lastly, my congratulations to Anthony, if there is any way I can assist in merging the code, I'd be happy to help (just don't ask me to install Python and Mercurial on my Plan 9 system - mind you, I'll probably have to do so, sooner or later :-(. Lucio.