From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: weigelt@metux.de, 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:47:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080611124038.GA3004@nibiru.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Modularizing plan9port Topicbox-Message-UUID: ba6bf422-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > So I intent do write some script which creates Makefile's from > mkfile's and maybe even does some build-time configuration > (sort of ./configure ;-)). That script(s) could be packet along > with some other fundamental p9p build utils, and this package > then would be the very first in depedency chain. Taking cross- > builds into account, this would be an TOOL or HOST dependency, > since it runs on the building host, not the target - an compiler- > less target wouldn't ever need it (it plays in the same liga as > tools like lex, make, autoconf, etc). > > What do you think about this approach ? aren't you skipping a step? how to modularize p9p is not an interesting question until one has decided that it worth doing. why is modularizing p9p a good idea? as you point out, the process creates a number of problems without adding any functionality. - erik