From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GNU Make Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:11:37 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: <0cfa374ef618e89ef35af9f93e0d1da2@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 90694b9e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > 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