On 8/10/05, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't depends on mk, because in my eyes the mk-based build chain > > in p9p is rather complex. > > see an optometrist ☺
I don't need to, nothing wrong with my eyes. Just have a look into bin/9* and I ask why this extra-abstraction is needed... Then see src/mk* - pretty much stuff, isn't one general inclusion sufficient? Why are shell scripts (like INSTALL), make and mk needed? Isn't make for bootstrapping enough and afterwards only mk? I didn't said that the system is bad, but it can be done simplier. For the monolithic character, the main reason to me is, that all headers reside in $PLAN9/include, which could be done in two places, that it is easier to just have a bunch of independent libs with their headers and a central place (poorly there is no union mount in *NIX) where all headers get together... Currently it is very much effort to determine which headers are needed/provided by which lib in src/lib*... Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
