Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports

[Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com>]

Russ Cox wrote:
...deleted
> 
> the problem isn't that i don't know what the structure should look like.
> the problem is that i don't want to do it.  i find it annoying to have
> to type things like /usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386/bin/acme,

surely you would have set your $path to include 
/usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386/bin ?

 > and further
> it makes writing shell scripts impossible:
> 
>    #!/usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386/bin/rc
> 
> isn't very portable!  you'd have to have a shell script "rc" that ran
> the binary rc and then use
> 
>    #!/usr/local/plan9/rc/bin/rc
> 
> or something like that.  it's just disgusting.

is it correct to assume that this unportableness of rc scripts is the 
reason for using /bin/sh all over the place? including in mk, which is 
not entirely to my liking.


 > i don't have many
> environments
> where different architectures share a tree like /usr/local, so i don't 
> worry
> much about it.  if we had union directories (or even athena's environment
> variable symlinks) to hide the ugliness, i might feel differently.

how about ignoring those that have the same home directory on several 
architectures? this leaves ''only'' the simpler problem of installing 
different files into $PLAN9/bin depending upon architecture.

the reason that i am willing to ignore these people is that i no longer 
am one of them. at the time i did inded use the "disgusting" method of 
having $PLAN9/bin/rc calling different binaries.


> it's easy enough to change if you want to change it -- just edit
> /usr/local/plan9/src/mkhdr and change BIN and LIB.

since i am not entirely sure about what "it's" refers to, i will ask:
do you mean that changing BIN and LIB will make it possible to install 
into /usr/local/plan9/FreeBSD/386


bengt