From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  2 Jun 2004 10:54:04 -0600
From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] GNU Make
In-Reply-To: <b1871eef31e1f4bf679acbcb81ccd05e@proxima.alt.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406021052570.25637-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 90a75ff6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

> Hm, maybe not, but perhaps somebody can sanity check me here.  It
> seems to me that the crucial factor lies with the return codes from
> the Plan 9 system calls when used by APE simulation procedures.

or: 
- 9p server on Plan 9 to Unix/Linux client (they want errno)
- u9fs server on Unix to Unix client

Still, it is hard to argue with the proposition that propagating errno is 
propagating braindamage. Maybe we'd better just drop this :-)

ron