Lucio De Re <lu...@proxima.alt.za> once said: > > Have you tried? It's a non-invasive change, and once they are set > > up it's unlikely they will need to be updated often. > > I think Anthony is on the right path on this point, in that I've had > to update a couple of mkfiles in the recent past because I had > overlooked changes to the coresponding Makefiles. Not many, but they > do trigger additional maintenance problems. > > The only alternative option I would pick is to merge the Go release > into the Plan 9 (and nix) distribution - mkfiles and all - then use a > mechanism analogous to mine to keep them in sync. The unsuspecting > public would never see the hard backroom effort.
IMO using anything other than Make to build the Go distribution is a fool's errand and simply too much of a maintenance burden. We would have to carefully watch upstream changes to any of the many Makefiles. Using make isn't as bad as some make it out to be and, to be clear, I'm only advocating the use of make to build the distribution; we can still add rules for building tools or libraries written in Go to the standard mkfiles in /sys/src. Anthony P.S. I plan to switch from GNU Make to APE make once I have the time to look closely at the Go Makefiles for any GNU specific features and then make the necessary changes or even modify ape/make.
