From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Bengt Kleberg Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <06bc01c426d3$897c0da0$0fca7d50@SOMA>, <2aa78de3278c853c61d44511e705f1e7@proxima.alt.za> Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:03:07 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 65bfca62-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: ...deleted > The interesting question is whether mk, unlike make, can be shell > agnostic. If I specify SHELL=/usr/bin/perl and supply perl recipes, > will mk cope more or less invisibly? could you please expand upon your question. i am currently understanding it as: if we have a (future, theoretical) mk that can handle SHELL=xyz instead of the current hard coded /bin/sh, would that work? to me the only possible answer would be yes. perhaps your question really is: it is worth it to expand(/improve?) mk to be able to handle SHELL=xyz instead of the current hard coded /bin/sh? then i would guess that the answer is: please, go ahead and try to do it. then we will know :-) bengt