Hello,
Afaik plan9ports main target is make a plan9-like environment on unix clones to develop in the same way plan9. And to make a program work in plan9 and unix without modifications.
I think that is the reason of that extra-abstraction you mention.
may be i'm wrong, so wait for Russ comment :)
gabi
2005/8/10, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
