Re: [9fans] GNU Make

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

> it seems to assume sys/types.h and (funnily enough) errno.h, amongst others,
> so it's mildly APE; many of the others are included only if many things are #defined
> so might not matter.  the assumed library is essentially APE

Does anyone else here believe that APE is worth enhancing?  I'm no fan
of glibc, but I do believe that efforts towards adding Posix
capabilities to Plan 9, clearly labelled as "use is detrimental to
sanity", are not wasted.

Still, my objective is to remove the dependence of the GNU development
tools from GCC as far as that will go.  I don't object to the GNU/APE
separation, but I find the duplication of tools hard to maintain and
the problem with GNU tools - like with Microsoft software - is that
you can't afford to lag too far behind the current release.

Right now, I'm battling to get APE wait4() to approximate the spec
more closely.  That will be followed by select(), I suppose.

And while I'm at it, has anyone figured out why even with the actual
object macros, I can't get Plan 9 troff (or nroff?) to present the
NetBSD man pages anywhere near readably?  Suggestions on how to get
this fixed will be gratefully accepted.  Rewriting the man pages is
not much of an option, of course.

++L