Re: [9fans] Standalone unix port of the original rc shell

["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  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361