On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@labs.coraid.com>wrote:
> > What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there > is > > a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club > Plan-9" > > is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good > new > > ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of rationalizing > > "club Plan-9". Anyone can join "club Plan-9" if you buy into that > > assumption. The main purpose of Plan-9 forks (with some exceptions) is > to > > port to new hardware. Messing with the premise of "club Plan-9" is > > significantly frowned upon and attacked. > > > > Just a newbie's (with 35 years experience) perception. > > first things first. breaking mk is not a good idea. to see that things > could > break with < rather than <= one only needs to consider a dependency that > might > be modified more than once during a build. for example fu.h that is > modified > for a debug version built along a non-debug version. > > perhaps there is some truth to this. certainly plan 9 is not perfect. > and > certainly there are things you will improve. but on the other hand, many > of us have quite a bit of experience, too. > Thanks for the input. I see your point but would argue (in the most friendly way) that the case you point out would be extremely rare, while the reverse case is very common. Adding sleep to the rarer case makes more sense to me. Again, I propose an option to mk that, IMO, would have wide value. Yes, I realize I can change my version of mk. In that case, I could do as I please. I was hoping to either learn from the experience (perhaps there is a good reason to have mk make the same stuff repeatedly), or be able to contribute. Thanks. Blake
