Hi Laslo, On 8 October 2017 at 13:05, Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:14:21 +0200 > Anselm Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But granted, that the cleanest solution would be to base all suckless >> tools on 9base/mk instead. > > 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.
There was a reason why we hated POSUCKS and called it that way. POSIX has seen so many revisions during the years that there is no such thing as "POSIX compliance". It's simply a delusion. And it was already 10 years ago. There are many POSIX standards and you never know what tool supports which "standard" of POSIX. In contrast 9base brings the already preselected toolchain incl. mk bundled together. Writing rc scripts or mkfile's that work with 9base becomes an easy task. That's why 9base has existed for so long and has been a integer choice also since p9p almost vanished. > The problem with 9base/mk is that many people don't associate the two. WTF? How did you get to this odd conclusion? > Maybe it would be wiser to separate mk from the rest and offer it as a > single package. Getting it packaged would be quite a bit of work - but No no no. mk MUST be bundled with a decent set of tools, just because you want you mkfile's working perfectly and avoid the problem of the POSUCKS hell. BR, Anselm
