From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d9b96a63aa6f533f415740a8ae749e38@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme, rio workalike available in plan 9 ports
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <c64uci$bp4$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:28:07 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 65f0c4d2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> boyd, rounin wrote:
> ...deleted
>> the problem isn't with mk, it's the recipies;  the chunks of code
>> that get run could (should?) be written in a 7th Ed shell or rc
>> independent 'style' if possible.
> 
One could go insane and allow an #!-type specification at the
beginning of non-default scripts.  I'm sure that way lies madness.

> imho, you are mostly correct. it is mainly the receipes in the mkfiles 
> that are affected by the sh/rc differences.
> however, i sometimes find myself doing this, or similar, in a mkfile:
> 
> DIR = `{pwd}
> 
> this is not what i call a recipe, and i do not know how to vrite it in 
> an independent style.
> 
I can't see how it could be done portably.  Teaching mk all sorts of
tricks would be counterproductive, may as well use GNU Make then.

++L