On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 07:05, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > mk is nice, but there is just not enough "spread" of it to justify > using it. Everyone with a toolchain has a POSIX compliant make utility. > The problem with 9base/mk is that many people don't associate the two.
I don't understand what you mean that "many people don't associate the two". Do you mean that many people do not know that 9base includes mk? > Maybe it would be wiser to separate mk from the rest and offer it as a > single package. I am curious why. 9base already exists and is quite small and is packaged for Debian and Arch for example. Do you want it packaged for more distributions?
