From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <c64v8g$c8i$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
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