From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20111201174858.GA23075@dinah> From: =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:38:45 +0200 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] go v. mk Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5179303e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > Why are parallel mkfiles in the /go tree considered eeevil? =C2=A0They se= emed to > be very low overhead. =C2=A0Surely accomodations are being made for Windo= ws. > > [...] My fiddling with the go tree makes me think it isn't that hard to > set up an overlay that adopts the live go tree to what Plan9 needs for a > build. =C2=A0bind(1) is a wonderful thing -- we should use it! > > [...] It can't be that hard > to parse out DIR=3D from there and turn it into a native mkfile. I'm very late in the discussion, but I'd like to point out that Go is already using the go build tool instead of makefiles, at least for some part of the tree. I believe this simplifies things greatly. No makefiles to maintain or generate. --=20 Aram H=C4=83v=C4=83rneanu