From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <89de3b4325c40999e16ca4857bbc723b@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <065101c426d0$ba587970$0fca7d50@SOMA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:20:25 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 61c6ce56-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> the problem isn't with mk, it's the recipies;  the chunks of code
> that get run could (should?) be written in a 7th Ed shell or rc
> independent 'style' if possible.

A "SHELL=" assignment in the mkfile could go a long way to guarantee
recipe compatibility, surely?  Or should it be a command line argument
to mk?

++L

PS: I use mk very little, so I may be off the mark above.