From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20818db841bde5514ea81072085d80b9@brasstown.quanstro.net>
References: <alpine.OSX.1.10.1112011153090.649@peregrinwifi.orthanc.ca>
	<6c4047deda8f6556c4f68b34b8f78dd6@proxima.alt.za>
	<20111202143311.GD7640@dinah>
	<20818db841bde5514ea81072085d80b9@brasstown.quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  2 Dec 2011 09:14:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJSxfm+nhfO5SbvmRctq5rjEQNiS-Cta0oiLikPxTnBXVyJuRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [9fans] Building Go on Plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4be1e706-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i think having Go is worth dealing with the beast.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:57 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>> IMO using anything other than Make to build
>> the Go distribution is a fool's errand and
>> simply too much of a maintenance burden.
>> We would have to carefully watch upstream
>> changes to any of the many Makefiles.
>>
>> Using make isn't as bad as some make it out
>> to be and, to be clear, I'm only advocating
>> the use of make to build the distribution;
>> we can still add rules for building tools
>> or libraries written in Go to the standard
>> mkfiles in /sys/src.
>
> the camel has his nose in the tent.
>
> - erik
>