On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:59:14 -0600 Joshua Haase <hah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> writes: > > Also, I think mk(1) uses rc(1), right? > > On plan9port it uses the shell defined on the environment. That's not precisely portable. > > I think `mk` is way more suckless. I'm not convinced mk(1) is less sucky than POSIX make(1), but it may be less sucky than many make(1) implementations. For example, make(1) doesn't need to know anything about the shell's syntax, whereas it as to in mk(1), and if I understood Greg's post correctly, it need has to understand two different set of syntaxes: rc(1)'s and sh(1)'s. make(1) only has too understand its own syntax, which is extremely simple. maandree
pgpoGMKcYEg84.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
