Hello,
 Afaik plan9ports main target is make a plan9-like environment on unix 
clones to develop in the same way plan9. And to make a program work in plan9 
and unix without modifications.
 I think that is the reason of that extra-abstraction you mention.
 may be i'm wrong, so wait for Russ comment :)
 gabi

 2005/8/10, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam@gmail.com>: 
> 
> On 8/10/05, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> > > It doesn't depends on mk, because in my eyes the mk-based build chain
> > > in p9p is rather complex.
> >
> > see an optometrist ☺
> 
> I don't need to, nothing wrong with my eyes. Just have a look into
> bin/9* and I ask why this extra-abstraction is needed... Then see
> src/mk* - pretty much stuff, isn't one general inclusion sufficient?
> Why are shell scripts (like INSTALL), make and mk needed? Isn't make
> for bootstrapping enough and afterwards only mk?
> 
> I didn't said that the system is bad, but it can be done simplier. For
> the monolithic character, the main reason to me is, that all headers
> reside in $PLAN9/include, which could be done in two places, that it
> is easier to just have a bunch of independent libs with their headers
> and a central place (poorly there is no union mount in *NIX) where all
> headers get together... Currently it is very much effort to determine
> which headers are needed/provided by which lib in src/lib*...
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de <http://www.ebrag.de> ><>< GPG key: 
> 0D73F361
>