19 Jun
2024
19 Jun
'24
9:16 p.m.
somewhere in this zillion-thread discussion there was a comment about Plan
9 and its multi-headed community. While that comment was probably accurate
a few years back, the last two years of Plan 9 workshops saw a lot of us,
representing many different Plan 9 code bases, get together and converge on
where we want to go. Once you meet someone in person, and go get a
cheesesteak together, arguments seem to resolve.
I would say, don't take too many impressions from 9fans, a famously
argumentative list. The folks who write Plan 9 code are in broad agreement
about moving forward and leaving hatchets buried. Progress is never as
rapid as we all would like, but I'm optimistic.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 7:54 AM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:44:14AM -0600, Warner Losh
wrote:
Yeah, I lost that battle. I prefer, and carry around the sources to, a
make from Unix. It's simple and does what I need. But my guys convinced
me there was enough value in gmake that we used it. I tried to keep
the craziness to a minimum. And I think I succeeded, I can fix bugs in
that Makefile.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 7:28???AM Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 07:46:15PM -0500, Nevin Liber wrote:
> > But I'll bite. There was the claim by Larry McVoy that "Writing
> Makefiles
> > isn't that hard".
> >
> > Please show these beautiful makefiles for a non-toy non-trivial
product
>
> Works on *BSD, MacOS, Windows, Linux on a bunch of different
architectures,
Solaris,
HPUX, AIX, IRIX, Tru64, etc.
The posted Makefile is no a strictly conforming POSIX Makefile, but uses
gmake extensions extensively... And eyes of the beholder may vary...